2014_10_08_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 10 City’s website. Member Cunningham opined that therefore, the City already met that step 455 in the process, similar to that being proposed for the developer to follow in turn. 456 Member Boguszewski agreed with Member Cunningham, that the requirement was not 457 an extraordinary burden, but was in parallel to the Planning Commission meeting 458 minutes, and since the open house didn’t have minutes, it made everything fairly and 459 accurately represented. If there was an undue burden, Member Boguszewski opined that 460 it was on citizens to attend a formal public hearing as well as the initial open house; 461 however, he further opined that it provided them with a mechanism to achieve 462 transparency. Further, Member Boguszewski stated that he didn’t necessarily assume 463 objectivity on the part of the developers for their open houses, having seen on occasion 464 things characterized or spun for their advantage during the process, with how things were 465 actually discussed at the open house or the nuances of those discussions now solely in 466 the hands of the developer and one degree further away from that desired objectivity. 467 Member Boguszewski opined that the opportunity for residents to summarize the 468 meetings from their perspective served to enhance the City’s desired role in helping 469 protect Roseville citizens to make sure they have sufficient transparency. 470 Member Murphy questioned the pleasure of the body on lines 56-57 to encourage 471 citizens to submit their own summary, and asked staff how the Planning Commission 472 would receive them – as unedited as an attachment or incorporated into the staff report. 473 Mr. Paschke advised that addresses and other private information would be redacted to 474 ensure the document was suitable for public viewing versus private correspondence with 475 staff; and could be provided as an attachment to the particular report for the review 476 process and consideration by the body as well as staff’s response as part of their 477 analysis. 478 Member Murphy stated that if a citizen had the opportunity to submit their summary 479 directly to the City and it became part of the review file, they could in turn feel comfortable 480 that they were being unedited. 481 Since staff proposed this revised language as an addition to the open house requirement, 482 Member Daire questioned if he understood that staff would attach all meeting summaries 483 to the project proposal, including citizen comments, as a part of the material reviewed by 484 the Commission going into the public hearing. 485 Mr. Paschke confirmed that would be the intent, as currently provided for review of cases. 486 Chair Gisselquist noted such attachments were typically seen as part of the agenda 487 packet materials. 488 Mr. Paschke noted that staff includes them when they’re received in time to be published 489 with the packet; otherwise provided as a bench handout or included as part of the 490 meeting discussion information or in the body of the report. In most cases, Mr. Paschke 491 advised that they were attached with e-mails and other information as part of the public 492 record and report. 493 Mr. Paschke clarified that staff was not immune from these requirements either, and in 494 instances where it was in the role of developer (e.g. comprehensive plan or zoning text 495 amendments), City staff would be required to follow these same procedures under code. 496 In his review of potential amendments, particularly this one, Mr. Paschke noted that it 497 was a way to ensure accountability for the developer or applicant holding the open house 498 by providing appropriate content of the meeting to their beset ability. In dealing with 499 transparency issues over the years, Mr. Paschke advised that staff had found the need 500 for more clarify on what actually transpired at the open house level, and not requiring the 501 public to restate their case at the Planning Commission level. 502 Chair Gisselquist opined that, given the size of some of the developments coming 503 forward, he did not find it onerous to require the developer to send out open house 504 summaries to those attending the meeting. 505