2014_10_08_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 8 Mr. Grefenberg admitted that he at times had agreed with that perception of staff, and 349 agreed that with more mutual respect and collaboration in the future, that perception 350 would be dismissed in time. Mr. Grefenberg stated that he would take the Planning 351 Commission’s comments and interest back to the Community Engagement Commission, 352 and their recommendation that the specific language, “… prepared by a third party such 353 as staff” be eliminated. 354 Specific to the Community Engagement Commission’s draft proposal and language 355 (9.1.b), Member Murphy stated that he was unsure that the City needed to incur the cost 356 for a staff person, but that it should be a cost borne by the developer. Member Murphy 357 opined that “neutral” was a very objective term; and further expressed concern in 358 “requiring” attendees to sign in. Member Murphy opined that the existing proposed 359 wording from staff currently before the Planning Commission was that citizens were 360 “encouraged” to submit their own summary of the meeting and provide their own 361 unbiased perspective. 362 Mr. Grefenberg clarified that his remarks weren’t intended to mean that attendees be 363 “required” to sign in, but that the developer was “required” to provide a sign-in sheet. 364 City Planner Paschke 365 Regarding the entire purpose of an open house, Mr. Paschke clarified that it was to 366 eliminate some of the concerns and issues initially raised by Mr. Grefenberg and the 367 Community Engagement Commission and the perception that staff was currently too 368 involved in projects prior to the public being made aware of and the Commission holding 369 a public hearing. Therefore, Mr. Paschke noted that theoretically the creation of the open 370 house was intended to be prior to staff’s review of the application and decision-making for 371 detailed projects, thereby removing staff’s perspective from the equation, and enhancing 372 the developer to resident relationship and interaction directly. Mr. Paschke stated that, as 373 a result of that initial process, the developer would formulate their formal plan to staff, and 374 incorporating or in response to citizen comment, and getting the public more involved 375 during the front end through the open house rather than only at the formal public hearing. 376 Mr. Paschke noted that this removed staff from attending or getting caught in the middle 377 of those citizen concerns, property owners, and developer rights; allowing them to focus 378 on the merits of the application on a case by case basis and in accordance with city code. 379 Lisa McCormack, Wheeler Street 380 From her personal perspective, Mr. McCormack expressed interest in a “required” sign in 381 sheet, while realizing people could still refuse to provide their name or address. However, 382 if they were taking time to attend, Ms. McCormack opined that they would be willing to 383 sign in. Ms. McCormack further opined that as part of that documentation requirement, a 384 number be provided of how many and who attended (e.g. citizens or representatives of 385 the developer), as she was aware of one recent instance that of the eight attending the 386 open house, a significant neighborhood only had 8 attending the open house, with one 387 being a Planning Commissioner and another listed attendee a representative of the 388 developer. Regarding the notification process, Ms. McCormack opined that often the 389 summary addressed in the staff report was more qualitative than quantitative; further 390 opining that it behooved the City to evaluate the process and have that information 391 available. Ms. McCormack agreed with Mr. Lloyd’s suggestion to move the additional 392 language of Item E (Summary) to that of Item D (Invitation) so residents realize they have 393 the opportunity to provide input and counter anything in the developer’s summary that 394 they are in disagreement with. Ms. McCormack further opined that it was not necessary 395 to have staff serve as a neutral third party but allow residents that opportunity. 396 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:48 p.m. 397 MOTION 398 Murphy moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to recommend to the City 399 Council approval of amendments to Roseville City Code, Section 1009.07 400 (Developer Open House Meetings) as recommended by staff in the project report 401 dated October 8, 2014, lines 41 - 62; amended as follows: 402