2012_0723_as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

night; and also allowing sufficient time for a formal Public Hearing on the Preliminary Plat at 210 their August Planning Commission meeting. 211 City Attorney Gaughan cautioned that, under that scenario, notice requirements would need for 212 be met for a formal Public Hearing. 213 Staff debated the technical notice requirements, with no clear determination made on that notice 214 schedule. 215 Councilmember Pust opined that the discussion was still ripe for consideration; and in response 216 to Councilmember Willmus’ comment about a super majority vote, cautioned that there should 217 be no pre-judgment on how individual Councilmembers may vote on whether or not to amend 218 the Comprehensive Plan if that were to come before the body. Councilmember Pust opined that 219 her overall goal was to avoid the citizens of Roseville being embroiled in litigation, noting that 220 this had always been and continued to be her position. Based on that, Councilmember Pust 221 asked, if it was the intent of the Mayor to proceed with the motion on the table, that before 222 voting, additional conditions be applied amending the motion. 223 Mayor Roe reviewed the process for amending motions, and suggested that any amendments be 224 considered and moved individually; with the results becoming part of the original motion, with 225 those amendments applied as applicable. 226 Pust moved, McGehee seconded, to TABLE action on the Preliminary for one (1) week. 227 After further discussion, and realization that this was the last day for City Council action on the 228 Preliminary Plat, or its approval by default, Councilmember Pust withdrew her motion to table. 229 Mayor Roe reviewed the motion currently before the body to approve the Preliminary Plat, 230 inclusive of the ten (10) enumerated conditions included in the City Attorney’s memorandum 231 dated July 9, 2012. 232 At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember Pust reviewed her additional 233 conditions beyond those recommended by the City Attorney’s Office. 234 Amendments 235 Councilmember Pust suggested a condition that the applicant waived the one (1) year time period 236 exemption to any potential Comprehensive Plan Revision(s). 237 Councilmember Pust sought clarification of the word, “conclusion,” in City Attorney Office 238 Condition #10 regarding issuance of any building permits; and suggested that it be more specific. 239 Councilmember Pust suggested a condition specifically addressing hours of operation of the 240 proposed facility, while recognizing that this could be interpreted as a use issue. However, 241 Councilmember Pust, based on her research of LMC publications, noted that conditions are 242 applied to use at the Preliminary Plat stage. In order to assure the community that this facility not 243 be operated on a 24-hour basis, Councilmember Pust opined that this was the time to have that 244 conversation. 245 At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan opined that the hours of operation were 246 more suited to an associated Development Agreement, as were the first five (5) conditions 247 outlined in their July 9, 2012 memorandum of recommended conditions. City Attorney Gaughan 248 noted that the purpose of the Development Agreement was to make sure everyone was on the 249 same page on all of those issues. 250