2011-02-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 02, 2011 Page 2 as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals, referring the appeal to the Planning 46 Commission for their review of the information and report back to the Board of 47 Adjustments and Appeals with their recommendation. 48 City Attorney Bartholdi clarified the purpose and focus of tonight’s meeting to review the 49 administrative decision of the Community Development Department, and for the Planning 50 Commission to make recommendation to the Board of Adjustments and Appeal on 51 whether staff made the correct decision in rejecting the appeal. Mr. Bartholdi reiterated 52 that the sole purpose of tonight’s meeting was to make that determination; not for another 53 review of rezoning or the merits thereof. 54 City Attorney Bartholdi instructed the Planning Commission on how their review should 55 be conducted: a review of the staff report, appeal and petition, in addition to written 56 opinions from the City’s Attorney; and any additional evidence presented tonight that was 57 specifically related to this administrative action under appeal. In conducting their review, 58 Mr. Bartholdi advised Commissioners to consider the staff report; appeal; petition; City 59 Attorney letter; and any evidence presented tonight related to admin action only. In 60 appeal itself, dated December 20, 2010, Mr. Bartholdi noted the three (3) specific bases 61 of the group, (page 2 of the appeal dated December 20, 2010), and the various City Code 62 sections referenced. 63 Mr. Bartholdi advised that, upon receipt of evidence, the Planning Commission should 64 then determine whether staff’s administrative ruling was accurate in interpreting City 65 Code, Section 201.07 that adjacent property owners were not allowed to petition for 66 Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and if so, to recommend to the Board of Adjustments 67 and Appeal that the administrative ruling of the Community Development Department be 68 upheld. Mr. Bartholdi advised, however, if the Planning Commission found that the three 69 points set forth in the appeal showed that the administrative ruling was not a correct 70 decision, they the Planning Commission should recommend to the Board of Adjustments 71 and Appeals that the administrative ruling not be upheld. 72 Mr. Bartholdi asked that, when making the decision, Commissioners should state as 73 many facts in the record as evidenced, as with any other land use decision coming before 74 the Planning Commission in order to provide as much information as possible to the 75 Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 76 Chair Boerigter requested that City Attorney Bartholdi again reiterate and highlight those 77 items in the meeting materials to ensure that everyone was aware of those documents 78 under review; at which City Attorney Bartholdi again reviewed those documents as 79 presented. City Attorney Bartholdi noted the basis of the administrative ruling, and 80 ratification by the City Attorney was that Section 201.07 of City Code did not allow 81 adjacent property owners the right to petition for a Comprehensive Plan amendment. 82 Member Gottfried clarified, and City Attorney Bartholdi verified it as one remedy of many, 83 that the Planning Commission could initiate efforts to amend the Comprehensive Plan, or 84 the City Council could direct the Planning Commission to consider such an amendment. 85 Member Gottfried further clarified that the problem was a procedural error with adjacent 86 property owners had petitioned the City Council directly to amend the Comprehensive 87 Plan. 88 At the request of Member Gottfried, City Attorney Bartholdi confirmed that the Planning 89 Commission would need to act upon any Comprehensive Plan Amendment by a super 90 majority vote via a formal resolution of the Commission; and further confirmed that the 91 administrative ruling was for denial of the petition was based on City Ordinance. 92 Member Wozniak requested a clarification from City Attorney Bartholdi on the term 93 “property owner” and use of that term that has resulted in the opinion of the City Attorney 94 identifying the term as referencing the subject property owner and not any other property 95 owner in the City of Roseville. 96