2015-07-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Page 4 Member Murphy also agreed with the comments of Chair Boguszewski, opining that with 148 the formal action by the City Council, unless there was some subsequent agreement by 149 all parties, then that action would need to stand as approved unless some obvious flaw 150 was identified. 151 Ms. McCormick 152 Based on Mr. Paschke’s comments, Ms. McCormickasked if Member Daire would 153 consider asking the original question, as it sounded like the issue may be coming back to 154 the City Council for clarification. 155 Mr. Paschke responded that this may not be the result, as the issue was currently being 156 reviewed by the Community Development Director for his determination on the proposal’s 157 future.Mr. Paschke advised that, once that determination had been made, written 158 correspondence would be provided to the applicant outlining their next steps, and what 159 could or could not be done.Mr. Paschke clarified that the issue was not in his hands, but 160 he anticipated a decision to be rendered soon. 161 Member Daire questioned if this determination would be administrative versus formal 162 Commission and City Council action. 163 Mr. Paschke responded that, at this point, the formal action had already been taken on 164 the IU application as conditioned last year, andhe was unsure whether or not the 165 outcome may be for Mr. Bilotta to determine if a more formal setting was required. 166 Given the interest expressed by Ms. McCormick and involvement by the Commission, 167 Member Murphy asked if Commissioners could be added to thedistribution list for that 168 written communication with Vogel Sheetmetal, the applicant. 169 Due to privacy issues and the nature of the communication, Mr. Paschke opined that he 170 doubted that the Commission or City Council would be copied since it was 171 communication directly with Vogel representatives. 172 Member Daire agreed with Mr. Paschke that the process seemed appropriate to him 173 under those circumstances. 174 While understanding the privacy aspect, Member Murphy opined that since the 175 communication was dealing with a condition enacted by the Commission and City 176 Council, and already acted upon, he questioned what additional action was under review. 177 Mr. Paschke clarified that the determination was based on the proposal as already 178 submitted, and Mr. Bilotta would be basing his decision on whether that original approval, 179 as conditioned, remained valid or whether this modification should be denied if found not 180 in compliance with those conditions, or if the proposed alternative was too much of a 181 variation from that originalapproval.From his perspective, Mr. Paschke stated that based 182 upon City staff’s response to Vogel’s request, it would then be up to them to take 183 appropriate action thereafter. 184 Member Murphy asked if Vogel’s submission was a public document. 185 Mr. Paschke responded that Member Murphy could request a copy of that document, and 186 they would advise whether or not it was public or private. 187 Even though Community Development Director Bilotta is not present tonight, Chair 188 Boguszewski expressed his assurance that this discussion would come to his attention, 189 and the Commission would receive a subsequent response from him based on this 190 dialogue.Chair Boguszewski opined that, based on staff’s comments, his understanding 191 was that the applicant was not seeking an alternative to the condition, which represented 192 an entirely different situation from his perspective.Chair Boguszewski asked that Mr. 193 Bilotta respond one way or the other, but expressed his confidence that if his 194 determination was that more formal action was required rather than an administrative 195 approval, the Commission would be aware of that item on an upcoming meeting agenda. 196