CC_Minutes_2013_0513 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 13,2013 Page 12 Mayor Roe opined, on that particular issue, the time of application was inappro- priate for considering code changes or excluding uses; and was an example of the need for proactive versus reactive measures before such a use was requested. Councilmember Laliberte suggested that the City Council was seeking more dia- logue from the Commission, and anytime they could carry something from their body to the City Council, it would be great, even though the Commission's dis- cussions were on public record. Councilmember Laliberte suggested that the Chair or Vice Chair attend City Council meetings to present land use requests as it moved forward; to provide key discussion points and keep the dialogue open be- tween the bodies and to allow the public to be aware of the extent of consideration and analysis given by the Commission before it reached the City Council level. Chair Gisselquist, using the asphalt plant as an example, noted the Commission's statutory role for analysis, and parameters from which it worked under, using the four corners of law, including the zoning code that indicated the plant was per- missible. Chair Gisselquist advised that deviating from current municipal code and law put the Commission in a quandary, no matter their individual or personal perspective on asphalt plans. Chair Gisselquist noted that the Commission's role was to administer law as currently written; and bigger policy decisions naturally rested with the City Council. While the Commission's role was clearly defined in that instance, Chair Gisselquist stated that he would be intrigued as to how they could have provided more input into that situation, even from the notice provi- sions and ramifications and other discussions held around that specific decision. Councilmember McGehee noted that, while that was a policy item, another con- sideration of the Commission was the health, safety and welfare issues with that application that were not clearly spelled out in the Commission's statutory bound- aries. Discussion ensued among the bodies on the Commission's expertise on issues; those items tabled or not proceeding from the Commission to the City Council by recommendation of the Commission for additional analysis; and suspension of the hearing process itself by the Commission. Vice Chair Boguszewski noted that he was aware that many of the Councilmem- bers read the meeting minutes of the Commission and/or watched meeting video rather thoroughly; and questioned if there was a suggested format for the Chair or other representative of the Commission to bring items to the City Council that would avoid duplication of what they could glean from those sources. Vice Chair Boguszewski noted that those suggestions could provide input for the Commis- sion to consider and discuss at their next meeting; even though it would mean ad- ditional time commitments for individual Planning Commissioners beyond that already being spent.