CC_Minutes_2007_1022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

e ar r~ iI eetl ®n aye ct er 7 age 1 Mr. Darrow noted that, while not yet codified, current staff practice is to provide mailed postcard notice to property owners within 3 50' of the subject property or to those within a radius of the longest dimension of the subject property, which- ever was greater. Mr. Darrow advised use of the City's website, posting of the subject property, and published notice. Discussion included definition of controversial versus non-controversial land use and/or zoning issues, and their impact on notification practice; staff interpretation concerns; historical findings that increasing distance notices didn't constitute ad- ditional attendance at public hearings; and requiring developers to hold neighbor- hood meeting(s) prior the Planning Commission public hearing process. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in support of a wider scope of notice, citing the City of Edina's notice as her preferred model. Councilmember Pust clarified the purpose of giving notice to alert those most af- fected by the proposed change, and suggested that those not coming to a meeting may be in agreement with a proposed development, and cautioned not to mini- mize the positive effect if people didn't attend a public meeting, or interpret as a lack of notice or lack of interest. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of bal- ancing providing information and notice against the cost of notices; and noted that only one community on the list provided by staff (i.e., Edina) provided 1,000 feet; and the rest averaged about 500'. Councilmember Pust supported a notice area of 500'; and requiring neighborhood meeting by the developer. Councilmember Pust requested staff's recommendation on Edina's practice of no- ticingboth the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Mr. Darrow expressed staff's willingness to proactively get the word out; and ad- vised that since no substantial additional staff data research time was required for noticing City Council meetings, and in an effort to alleviate concerns in the com- munity that they were not being informed, further expressed staff's willingness to proceed as directed by the City Council. Mayor Klausing advised that his concern in noticing City Council meetings is du- plicating the public hearing at the Planning Commission level; and the potential of diminishing the work of the Planning Commission. Mayor Klausing spoke in support of a separate notice to clarify that aspect. Mr. Darrow recommended clarification that there were not two (2) public hear- ings; and indicating that the public hearing would still be at the Planning Com- mission level; and noting that the case would be heard at the City Council, but that it wouldn't be a formal hearing.