pm_020608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 06, 2008 Page 11 review timeframe; inclusion of a required open house as part of the checklist for developers (under City Code, Section 1008); and the uniqueness of each land use application and/or project. Commissioner Doherty was not enthusiastic about mandating an open house as a code requirement, unless it was a controversial project. Commissioner Gottfried asked for a definition of “controversial,” and how staff should make that determination. Mr. Paschke advised that staff did not want to make the determination as to whether a project was going to be controversial or not. Further discussion included requirements of other metropolitan communities; timing and location of proposed open houses and how to stipulate those issues to accommodate interested parties; distance notification process; location of meeting in close proximity to the site or at City Hall; and potential areas of confusion between an open house and formal Public Hearing at the Planning Commission level. Commissioner Boerigter opined that he didn’t want to mandate an open house, without defining the specifics for such an open house. Commissioner Gottfried, while recognizing staff’s preference to codify the process, concurred with Commissioner Boerigter on the need to specify language clearly in ordinance form to indicate the purpose of the open house. Commissioner Gottfried noted the advantages experienced by the two (2) cases heard tonight, and the successes of their involvement of the public prior to tonight’s meeting. Further discussion included the process and perceptions of the process related to notification, public involvement, and opportunities for public comment. Chair Bakeman opined that there were numerous public hearings and public meetings held for many projects, but often there was no public input, and further opined that at some point, reality versus perception needed to be recognized. Mr. Paschke noted that the perception was still present, whether through the Twin Lakes Redevelopment process; or through the White Paper received from the Friends of Twin Lakes. Additional discussion included the role of the Planning Commission or staff in attending the open house, or even being notified of such a meeting, with Commissioners noting that they had not received notice of either of the open houses referenced for tonight’s agenda items. Further discussion included whether or not the developer make allowances for public comment by revising their proposal, and how the Planning Commission would track those public comments; the need to notice potential Planning Commissioner attendance at an open house in accordance with Open Meeting Law; and the purpose of the open house related to the process. Public Comment Randy Neprash, 1276 Eldridge Avenue Mr. Neprash spoke as a citizen, an Executive Board Member of the Roseville Citizen’s League, and one of the authors of the White Paper as referenced by staff. Mr. Neprash summarized the various issues addressed in the White Paper related to notification and distribution of information to citizens during the development review process, and expressed his uniform observations of the level of uncertainty of that process, and the frustrations on the part of the citizens in finding pathways to access information in a timely fashion for a whole range of development projects; with the end result being an unfortunate level of distrust. Mr. Neprash opined that it was the consensus of that White Paper that the level of distrust was driven to a large extent