2014-12-03_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning CommissionRegularMeeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes–Wednesday, November 5, 2014 1.Call to Order 1 Chair John Gisselquistcalled to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commissionmeeting at 2 approximately6:05p.m.and reviewed the role and purpose of the Planning Commission. 3 2.Roll Call & Introduction 4 At the request of Chair Gisselquist,City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. 5 Members Present: Chair John Gisselquist;Vice Chair Michael Boguszewski; and Members 6 Robert Murphy; Shannon CunninghamandJames Daire 7 Member Absent: MembersMohamed KeynanandDavid Stellmach 8 Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke 9 3.Reviewof Minutes 10 October 8, 2014 Regular Meeting Minutes 11 MOTION 12 MemberCunningham moved, seconded by Member Boguszewskito approve the October 13 8,2014meeting minutes aspresented . 14 Ayes: 5 15 Nays: 0 16 Motion carried. 17 4.Communications and Recognitions 18 a.From the Public (Public Comment on items noton the agenda) 19 None. 20 b.From the Commission or Staff 21 5.Other Business 22 Member Daire asked Mr. Paschke if, to his knowledge, there were any project proposals for 23 which open houses had been held, but no applications yet filed. 24 Mr. Paschke confirmed that he was aware of one project off County Road B West for a residential 25 development that had held an open house.However, from staff’s review of proposed plans and 26 the outcome from the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Paschke advised that staff recommended the 27 developer revise their initial submittal, and therefore the application had been deemed incomplete 28 by staff due to that finding. 29 From a procedural perspective, Member Daire asked if the open house held for that particular 30 project would be deemed completed, or if another open house would be required. 31 While offering to review the specific open house requirements in ordinance, Mr. Paschke 32 responded that it would probably depend on whether the re-submittal was substantially different 33 than originally presented, or similar.Mr. Paschke noted that all those signed-in from the open 34 house would receive an invitation to the Public Hearing before the Planning Commission for any 35 project, and able to provide public testimony at that time.However, Mr. Paschke advised that, if 36 there was a considerable gap in timing of the re-submittal, staff would most likely recommend that 37 the developer hold another open house; but if short-term, staff would probably find the initial open 38 house acceptable, and move the application forward to the Planning Commission for their 39 consideration and public review and comment. 40 6.Adjourn 41 Chair Gisselquistadjourned at 6:13p.m. 42