pm_071205 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 05, 2007 Page 10 notice area, to facilitate improved communication specifically with potentially controversial land use issues. Staff recommended adoption of amendments to Title 10 and Title 11 of the Roseville City Code to increase the direct-mailing notification to property owners within 500 feet of the project site and to require a neighborhood meeting/open house for residents within 500 feet of a proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) and/or a PUD Amendment. Discussion included costs and cost-sharing for such notices and variables; desire for more public involvement early in the process, rather than reactionary responses; number of PUD’s and/or PUD Amendments heard annually (estimated at an average of 5 cases); logistics of the process and responsible parties; current practice for encouraging developers to hold public meetings, with no enforcement provisions; why only PUD’s and PUD Amendments were being considered, rather than all land use applications; comparisons with notice provisions of other communities; and whether the Planning Commission was not doing their job, or if this was a policy discussion on the City Council level. Commissioner Gottfried questioned the role of the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council and their responsibilities to the community, as well as the community’s responsibility to monitor the public planning process, without adding another layer of review to the process. Mr. Paschke reiterated the desire to get citizens more publicly involved in the process, before a case comes before the Planning Commission, and staff’s recommendation for support or denial; by getting them involved prior to that hearing with their concerns and issues, and prior to the developer creating a project for staff review. Commissioner Gasongo spoke in support of staff’s recommendation; opining that the applicant should be encouraged to approach the public with their proposed project, and to collect public comments, through a consistent process, without the City or staff over-managing the process. Further discussion included how the Planning Commission would know of discussions and comments from the public meetings for their decision-making process; Commissioner Doherty questioned why only PUD’s were being singled out; and why the City of Roseville would require, not suggest, more developer involvement with the public for their proposed project. Chair Bakeman opined her support for additional communication opportunities between residents and developers, allowing for additional public research before a more formal public hearing process. Commissioner Doherty opined that the Planning Commission was in place to serve a purpose; and further opined that it was up to the public to make comment verbally or in writing at those opportunities. Commissioner Doherty opined that he wanted the public to be heard, but noted that a process was already in place, and required public involvement based on their interest. Mr. Paschke opined that the PUD process was a good place to start; to allow discussion outside the staff and Planning Commission process, between the developer and neighborhood. Commissioner Boerigter opined that attempting to codify an informal policy under PUD circumstances didn’t seem to serve much of a purpose; and further opined that the policy be eliminated or kept, while not making it a requirement. Commissioner Wozniak concurred with Commissioner Boerigter’s comments; suggesting there was a middle ground, and that this proposal be tested during 2008 for all PUD’s. Commissioners concurred that additional information be gathered during 2008 to determine if the public has elected to become more publicly engaged in the land use process. Public Comment Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing to speak.