pm_020608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 06, 2008 Page 12 due to problems of notification and distribution of information; and, in line with that, offered his support of the proposed text amendment as recommended by staff, providing for a broadened distribution of information with a reasonable level of burden on applicants. Mr. Neprash suggested options to broaden the notice area; electronic sign ups for people interested in specific or all development projects that could be linked to those projects; or notification of advisory commissions in that context; and to facilitate a set of modifications for the entire development review process. Additional discussion included existing electronic notice abilities; notice expectations on the City’s website for non-city-related meetings (i.e., open houses); how the open house would do away with or resolve issues of distrust; where the level of distrust originated (staff, Planning Commission, City Council, residents); and the need for the exchange of information to be reciprocated and lines of communication enhanced. Commissioner Doherty reiterated his lack of support for this text amendment for mandatory open houses; and his past attempts to meet with the Friends of Twin Lakes to hear their concerns, with those attempts at communication being ignored. Chair Bakeman opined that she didn’t believe an ordinance was the appropriate mechanism to achieve the goal of getting the information delivered to those who care; and suggested that a process be developed at the application conference that would include the open house as part of the process in its initial stages. Commissioner Gottfried spoke in support of staff’s request for a written procedure, with some concern, noting that in his role with MnDOT, the state legislature adopted the legislation, but that MnDOT then developed rules and regulations to facilitate that legislation. Commissioner Gottfried, however, asked for clarification on where the problem existed, and if only dealing with people’s perceptions, it was the role of the Planning Commission to listen to public opinion and base their decision-making on all the facts before them, and available through their research. Commissioner Gottfried opined that it appeared the process was working. Further discussion included ramifications to staff without codified procedures and lack of ability to enforce the process. Commissioner Doherty opined that it was a perceived lack of trust, and a text amendment was not going to alleviate that lack of trust. Commissioner Doherty questioned whether the lack of trust originated from the fact that some people disagreed with the vote; and whether the mistrust was of the process, or was based on several isolated cases (i.e., Twin Lakes; Mueller Property). Commissioner Doherty, as well as Commissioner Gottfried, concurred that they had changed their minds at the bench based on public input; however, noted that there was a substantial lack of public input, and at times only a vocal minority. Chair Bakeman observed that it had to do with the spirit of compromise and whether you were in agreement or disagreement with a decision; and that rewriting City Code would not alleviate that situation. Chair Bakeman noted that the Commission considered the City as a whole; while people looked at their individual neighborhood or a specific project, not the overall impact or result. Chair Bakeman proposed that, rather than considering a text amendment at this time, that the Commission and staff use 2008 land use cases as a “test” throughout the year to track the development process and how it worked. Further discussion included informing the Planning Commission of the location and date of the open house/informational meetings for projects as outlined in staff report,