2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 18 Manke. Chair Boguszewski noted an obvious concern was that not enough people were noticed 849 about potential projects or zoning issues affecting them, especially renters or non-owner tenants 850 of commercial or industrial buildings, projects affecting a higher intensity or use, or those effecting 851 a zoning change. Chair Boguszewski expressed satisfaction with the concluding report 852 addressing those concerns through a variety of recommendations, including signage on 853 development parcels, advertising on the website and through direct mailings to the addresses of 854 legitimate stakeholders to make sure they have the option of being part of the process. Chair 855 Boguszewski gave his personal kudos to Members Daire and Grefenberg for their drafting of the 856 final recommendations. 857 Chair Boguszewski offered to respond to any questions of the commission regarding this report. 858 Member Daire noted the key thing was not only shifting the distance from proposed zoning 859 changes embodied in this report but to also go beyond those people having a financial or property 860 interest in the area as had been past practice, but also recognizing and addressing other impacts 861 to renters and/or business tenants and their legitimate interests in what happens in this 862 community. By showing them respect by notifying them, Member Daire expressed the Task 863 Force’s hope that they would become more involved in the community. Member Daire opined that 864 this resulted in a significant change in proving the heart of this city and its administration by 865 involving not only taxpayers, but renters and tenants, providing a most interesting and striking 866 take-away that “we care” and we want to hear your opinion, with the choice up to the recipient of 867 the notice as to whether they attend those opportunities or not. 868 Chair Boguszewski also noted the desire for transparency, and some things considered by the 869 task force being backed away from based on their interpretation that they would be too restrictive, 870 and some that were already covered in other code language. Chair Boguszewski recognized 871 former Community Development Director Paul Bilotta and City Planner Thomas Paschke for their 872 attendance at the task force meetings, and for their significant help in working out feasible details 873 and those that were economically viable form the city’s perspective (e.g. cost of notifications); and 874 thanked them for their support of those efforts. 875 Member Daire agreed, opining that what impressed him the most was the serious effort of staff in 876 their efforts to expand the city’s communications database for renters and tenants, at a minimum 877 identifying units, not necessarily names, for both residential and commercial buildings. Member 878 Daire opined that those efforts had gone far beyond rhetoric and yielded an in-depth database. 879 Member Cunningham thanked Members Daire and Boguszewski for their work and willingness to 880 take time for these additional meetings. Having started her city involvement on the City’s initial 881 Civic Engagement Task Force, Member Cunningham recognized the efforts of this task force, 882 opining that they did a fabulous job. 883 For the record, Chair Boguszewski shared Member Daire’s recognition of city staff in assisting 884 these efforts, as well as recognizing Gary Grefenberg of the Community Engagement Task Force 885 for serving as Chairperson for the Task Force and keeping notes of the meetings and things 886 moving along through his management of the process. 887 Member Kimble opined that it looked like a great effort and community-building report. Member 888 Kimble asked if there was any intent to have a corresponding identification during public 889 testimony opportunities to determine who was a renter versus a property owner. 890 Chair Boguszewski responded that there was no intent to do so other than the usual name and 891 address listing on the sign-in sheet, even though that could be made an informal part of the 892 process in identifying those particular stakeholders and relationship to the property or project. 893 Member Gitzen suggested that could prove a touchy area; with Chair Boguszewski recognizing 894 some may be reluctant to do so. 895 Member Kimble referenced Page 7 of the report and recommended strategies for extraordinary 896 notification beyond 500’, and asked if there was an additional area defined or if it was intentional 897 to leave that undefined for determination on a case by case basis. 898