2015-07-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Page 2 system that made it hard for people in the community to get along, and actually tended to 46 create versus solving problems.Ms. McCormick opined that it would be more respectfully 47 for all parties if people were aware of potential developments or redevelopments, or uses 48 before versus after-the-face.In the event that a similar situation occurs in the future, Ms. 49 McCormick asked that the Commission err on the side of caution and make 50 recommendations to the City Council that favored Roseville residents. 51 In an attempt to clarify and understand the comments and apparent concerns expressed 52 by Ms. McCormick, Chair Boguszewski advised that in addition to his personal 53 recollection of the events she referenced, he had also printed out the meeting minutes 54 related to this particular land use case, as well as the minutes of the subsequent City 55 Council meetings.Based on his research, Chair Boguszewski agreed with Ms. 56 McCormick’ recollection about the results of both the Planning Commission and City 57 Council action and conditions applied to approval of the IU request of Vogel Sheetmetal. 58 Chair Boguszewski clarified that, while the Commission was confident of the analysis 59 performed and City Code interpretation provided by City Planner Paschke, following their 60 meeting discussion and in orderto avoid any doubt, it had been the unanimous decision 61 of the Commission to add the condition specific to screening to reinforce City Code 62 provisions.Chair Boguszewski noted that the City Council agreed with the Commission’s 63 recommendation, and actually had further reinforced it during their approval process. 64 While Ms. McCormick’s comments were new to him within the last twenty-four hours, 65 Chair Boguszewski asked if she was appearing tonight because she wanted to bring 66 forward indications that the property owner was not in compliance with this condition, of if 67 the City was not enforcing compliance with that condition. 68 Ms. McCormick clarified that her primary purpose in appearing was to thank the 69 Commission for making their recommendation; and to state how important it was that the 70 Commission took that action and why it was so significant to residents.Ms. McCormick 71 stated that she was not appearing to express concern that the applicant was not 72 complying with the condition.However, Ms. McCormick stated thatshe understood that 73 Vogel Sheetmetal had now submitted an alternate plan, currently under review, and in 74 process. 75 Member Murphy asked if Ms. McCormick was stating that the applicant was submitting 76 an alternate plan different than the original plan submitted. 77 Ms. McCormick responded in the negative, but noted she had contacted the applicant a 78 month or two ago, but had not yet heard anything back from them. 79 Member Murphy again sought to clarify with Ms. McCormick that she was referencing the 80 applicant’s initial submission and conditions as applied. 81 Ms. McCormick responded that yes, it was her understanding that it was the initial 82 submission, and in process. 83 Ms. McCormick further stated that, in her meeting on the Vogel Sheetmetal site last week 84 with CommunityDevelopment Director Paul Bilotta and City Planner Paschke, Mr. 85 Paschke had made a statement at that point that, were it not for the IU application, there 86 would have been no trigger prompting additional screening.Ms. McCormick stated that 87 this stressed to her that City Code should protect residents, but unless dirt was turned 88 over as a property redeveloped, City Code provisions did not necessarily trigger such 89 conditions. 90 Member Daire sought to clarify with Mr. Paschke whether his presumptions were 91 accurate that Ms. McCormick’s appearance was triggered by an upcoming report that 92 would be made public. 93 Ms. McCormick clarified that this was not her intent, and she was comfortable letting staff 94 perform their analysis. 95