2015-09-02_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 5, 2015 Page 14 appreciation for the good feedback and good ideas heard during tonight’s public 658 comment, and the public process in general to facilitate this dialogue. Mr. Nelson stated 659 the developer’s commitment to hold an open house as the Owasso School project 660 proceeds, and clarified that it was not nor had it ever been their intent to skirt any open 661 house discussion with neighbors. Mr. Nelson assured neighbors and the commission that 662 they would follow-up with an open house for both projects in the very near future. 663 Chair Boguszewski recognized that the developer was operating under current city code 664 and not being required to hold an open house, and reiterated that the developer was not 665 attempting to evade holding an open house. 666 Mr. Nelson noted that, for a considerable time during the planning process, the developer 667 didn’t even think there would be a need to plat the property for this project, other than 668 through the administrative approval process. However, once it became evident that the 669 road right-of-way and 1.5 acre overlap on 50’ of Lot 2 needed to be cleaned up on the 670 title, Mr. Nelson advised this initiated this more formal process to clarify those issues. 671 To further clarify for the benefit of the public, Chair Boguszewski noted that both he and 672 Member Daire served on the Task Force previously referenced by Member Daire; and 673 further noted that the Task Force was supported by Mr. Paschke and Mr. Bilotta of staff; 674 with the general intent to look at the current process and triggers requiring notification of 675 projects with the eye toward improving and probably enlarging the number of property 676 owners and residents included in notices beyond that of today. Chair Boguszewski 677 advised that over the last several years, efforts to improve good civic engagement and 678 address resident issues with an apparent lack of transparency in the past had come forth 679 based on common courtesy, that the current process needed modification. However, 680 since nothing had yet been finalized or any recommendations formally presented to the 681 City Council for formal action, Chair Boguszewski opined that it would be unfair in the 682 middle of those discussions, to require a developer to meet those higher standards 683 before they were adopted. 684 Chair Boguszewski noted that it was prudent that the Roseville public be aware that the 685 City desired to continue improving the process. 686 Mr. Paschke noted, in this unique instance, the developer was not required to plat the 687 property and they could have simply subdivided the property without any project. Mr. 688 Paschke clarified that when talking about extending the notification process for projects 689 requiring a formal review and approval process versus the normal administrative process 690 as guided and zoned, it was not the intent to notify for each and every project coming 691 forward unless it met certain triggers or thresholds. 692 Member Daire noted a recent parking lot resurfacing project occurring near a citizen’s 693 home and their questioning of why they were not notified of that occurring. Member Daire 694 noted his surprise with that statement, and reiterated that it had made him sensitive to 695 people needing to know what was going on around them. Member Daire clarified that he 696 did not intend to suggest this developer was attempting in any way to avoid examination 697 of their project. 698 While recognizing no fault with the developer, and specific to the work of the Task Force, 699 Member Cunningham asked that her colleagues bring this particular example to the Task 700 Force as evidence of the need to modify current practices and processes. Member 701 Cunningham noted the need for the developer to be aware of and respond to questions 702 and concerns of residents before a public hearing at the Planning Commission level. 703 Member Cunningham expressed appreciation to residents accepting that this property 704 would be developed and no longer be a vacant lot. However, Member Cunningham 705 expressed confidence in the developer and their efforts in performing their due diligence 706 in meeting current requirements; and offered her support of the project moving forward. 707 Member Stellmach noted that, since this property was zoned HDR, a much denser 708 project could have been possible. Member Stellmach stated this represented a good 709 project for the overall neighborhood, and offered his support for the proposal. 710