2010-08-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 04, 2010 Page 15 Commission. Chair Doherty opined that he seemed to be hearing that citizens 704 didn’t trust the outcome when the outcome had yet to be determined. 705 Member Gottfried noted that, at an open meeting such as this one, there was an 706 opportunity to fill the room and make your point; and that it was the job of the 707 citizen volunteer Planning Commission to listen. Member Gottfried opined that, if 708 government had failed, it was because the public had failed to show up and let 709 the government know what they wanted it to do or not to do. 710 Mr. Grefenberg opined that the City website and a Public Hearing format may not 711 be the most appropriate way to provide comment; and further opined that there 712 was no plan that couldn’t be improved upon. 713 Member Gottfried opined that this is the public process and that the process was 714 available to every citizen of Roseville, and that they could choose to make it 715 effective or not, and one way to make it ineffective was to not show up. Member 716 Gottfried noted that anyone attending the meeting had the opportunity to step up 717 to the microphone to be heard, and assured everyone that they were listened to; 718 and that their comments were often reflected in the Commission’s 719 recommendations to the City Council. 720 Mr. Paschke noted that, not to take away from the concept of an open house, 721 staff had gone to extreme measures to provide public notification, made 722 repeatedly revised drafts of proposed chapters available on the City website; 723 and attempted to make the entire process, as approved by the City Council as 724 part of the Consultant contract, as transparent as possible. Mr. Paschke noted 725 that the Employment District chapters currently under discussion had been on 726 the website for a number of weeks. Mr. Paschke advised that, if there were to 727 now be an abrupt disruption to the critical timeline being followed for completion 728 of the major portion of this project, it could have negative consequences. Mr. 729 Paschke encouraged the public that there was as much to be gained by 730 comment by e-mail to staff, the Commission and City Council, as by scheduling 731 and/or attending an open house with limited attendance. 732 Member Gottfried spoke in support of Chair Doherty’s previous comments related 733 to the public hearing process providing an opportunity, for the public record, of 734 discussion and to hear comments, concerns, and suggestions related to any item 735 before this body. Member Gottfried noted that you didn’t have to agree with what 736 was going on, or what you perceived was going on; and noted that some things 737 were not et completed vetted out, and that many residents were under the 738 impression that this was a “done deal.” However, Member Gottfried suggested 739 that, the fact that they were present at a public hearing, was a good indication 740 that it was not a “done deal,” ant that this was the purpose of the hearing and 741 public comment to have your voice heard. Member Gottfried encouraged 742 citizens to take advantage of the multiple opportunities to do so; and that the 743 Commission was available to hear those voices. 744 Chair Doherty opined that the discussion related to this chapter was at a 745 disadvantage since the message and focus coming forth was that it was due to 746 the asphalt plant. Chair Doherty noted that he was unaware of the status of the 747 asphalt plant, and asked for an update from staff on the plant, rather than to hear 748 different rumors and misconstrued perceptions. 749 Mr. Grefenberg volunteered that public comments would be heard on the 750 proposed asphalt plan regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 751 (EAW) before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) with the deadline 752 of August 11, 2010 to get comments to the MPCA on the EAW and the 753 application by the asphalt plant for a preliminary emission permit. 754