CC_Minutes_2007_1022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

eg iar ity Co ci eeti on ay, cto er , age 17 Public Comment John Kysyiyczyn, 3083 N Victoria Street Mr. Kysylyczyn noted that the chart displayed by staff and their analysis of post cards notice mailed out and responses, was not included as part of the Council packet. Mr. Darrow confirmed that it had not been included in the packet; and had just been prepared by staff for tonight's presentation. Mr. Kysylyczyn opined that the information provided on the chart was not con- clusive as it only showed the number of people showing up; but didn't indicate the written, e-mail or phone comments or responses of citizens to staff, Planning Commissioners, individual Councilmembers and/or developers. Additional discussion included specific past land use issues and various contro- versies; practice of counties and their notice provisions depending on the type of permit and area, based on density; and practice of the City of Apple Valley in the Planning Commission hearing cases twice at that level for further refinement be- fore reaching the City Council level. Councilmember Thlan reiterated her support of the Edina model, and notice of 1,000'; opining that cost was not a reason to limit the area of notice, when put in context with other consulting and legal fees of the Community Development De- partment; and served to make the process more open. Councilmember Ihlan also opined that, while the neighborhood meetings were valuable, they needed to be labeled as developer-led, and could not be relied upon for public government- sanctioned purposes. Councilmember Pust clarified that the purpose of the neighborhood meetings was in addition to, not as a substitute, for the public hearing and meetings. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of neighborhood meetings and the validity of an initial meeting prior to Planning Commission action; and questioned, if us- ing the Edina model with 1,000' notice, how a threshold was determined for pro- j ects, and how a determination was made as to small and/or large, controversial or non-controversial, and when it didn't make sense to notify that large of an area. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of a sliding scale, utilizing 350' for smaller projects; and larger projects utilizing a larger radius notice area; which would provide staff with a tool not so open to interpretation. Mr. Darrow addressed ways to determine triggering mechanisms, through quar- terly or monthly updates to the City Council in areas that have been contentious in the past; his past practice in increasing notice, additional review and more due diligence for any change in use or zoning, whether controversial or not; or Com-