2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 12 zoning code rewrite at a future meeting, allowing for public notice of that specific 552 discussion. 553 Member Boerigter advised that there appeared to be a consensus of 554 Commissioners that this discussion needed to be carried forward; however, he 555 noted the difficulties in the protocol suggested by Mr. Neprash in determining 556 whether a use may have city-wide negative impacts and what criteria should be 557 used to determine that impact. 558 At the request of Member Boerigter, Mr. Paschke clarified that the notice area 559 was addressed in another code, while referenced in numerous sections of code; 560 and reiterated staff’s attempt to eliminate redundancy in the code, not a 561 wholesale change in notice requirements; and expressed staff’s willingness to 562 have a more involved discussion on modifying that distance at a later date. Mr. 563 Paschke noted, as had Commissioners, that concerns brought forward by 564 citizens at tonight’s public hearing were now part of the record and that citizens 565 could also alert the City Council to their concerns on the notice area policy that 566 they had previously established, above and beyond these Planning Commission 567 meeting minute records. 568 Mr. Paschke clarified that staff was not promoting or advocating it, as the 569 Community Development Department did not wish to implement ambiguous 570 protocol procedures based on their individual or department-specific perceptions 571 of potential impacts, but were charged with proceeding based on State Statute 572 and City Council policy requirements, noting timing issues to comply with in the 573 60-day review period for land use as dictated by State Statute, and publication 574 and mailing of those notices. Mr. Paschke opined that the more clear and 575 concise the better from staff’s perspective; and clarified that staff was not 576 opposed to those suggestions presented by Mr. Neprash, and since the entire 577 thought process had been prompted by the asphalt plant, perhaps further 578 consideration was needed for Industrial Uses for expanded notice. However, Mr. 579 Paschke was not supportive of staff or a committee making random decisions for 580 notice areas, since that had created problems in the past; and supported 581 additional discussions within applicable contexts. 582 Gary Grefenberg 583 Mr. Grefenberg opined that further discussion was necessary since there had 584 been no public notice that this was going to be discussed at tonight’s meeting, 585 and that any action would be inappropriate and provide a lack of transparency, 586 only repeating past mistakes. 587 Vice Chair Boerigter asked that Mr. Grefenberg offer his comments on the notice 588 area for the record. 589 Mr. Grefenberg concurred with Mr. Neprash that a larger notice area was 590 necessary for industrial uses creating odors, mega-churches, a potential Vikings 591 stadium, and for sure the asphalt plant. Mr. Grefenberg opined that other cities 592 had different notice standards based on the proposed use; and suggested that 593 staff be directed to look into that and develop a sliding scale, or volunteered to 594 research it himself. However, Mr. Grefenberg opined, as an example, that his 595 neighborhood in the southwestern section of Roseville was certainly not prepared 596 to discuss this item tonight, since it had not been included on tonight’s agenda. 597 Member Gisselquist suggested that the PROCEDURES section be amended to 598 be more generic; and that future discussion be planned for notice area 599 requirements as a specific chapter. 600 Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 8:44 p.m. 601 Discussion among Commissioners and staff included future discussion for open 602 house and public hearing notice area requirements; their desire to see the 603 PROCEDURES section again following additional staff work on the Permitted 604