Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 <br />Page 13 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had fielded only one <br />598 <br />additional public comment since distribution of the meeting packet; with a phone call from <br />599 <br />a resident on Marion Road calling in opposition to the project, basedon further <br />600 <br />subdividing the existing lot and changing the character of the neighborhood by removing <br />601 <br />the one remaining large lot in the community. <br />602 <br />Member Bull questioned why the dates for the open house were so long ago beyond <br />603 <br />tonight’s hearing of the case; and questioned if the dates fell within the timeframe <br />604 <br />parameters specified by code. <br />605 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that code required the open house be held within 30 days of <br />606 <br />submission of the application; and statedhe was not sure what prevented the application <br />607 <br />being received until June, with several months going by between open houseand that <br />608 <br />submission.While not having strictly addressed the timeline in the past, Mr. Lloyd <br />609 <br />advised that staff had allowed the application to come forward, since this was not a new <br />610 <br />proposal and the intent of the code was to allow the public sufficient time to be aware of <br />611 <br />and respond to an application. <br />612 <br />Member Bull questioned if the Commission could or should even consider the application <br />613 <br />if it didn’t conform to code. <br />614 <br />Member Daire asked if the time lag was sufficient to invalidate this proposal. <br />615 <br />Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the application was inconsistent with code, but to-date there had <br />616 <br />been no provision specifying the connection, even though a reasonable reading of code <br />617 <br />might infer that.Whatever held up the application between late March and early June, Mr. <br />618 <br />Lloyd advised that Mr. Mueller had held several open house meetings in the past during <br />619 <br />his proposal of more or less the same development; and therefore aside from dotting that <br />620 <br />“I”, he was not sure of what additional value an additional open house may serve. <br />621 <br />Member Bull stated code says it must be held no more than 45 days from filing of the <br />622 <br />plat; which was not optional by definition in code, but was mandatory.For the protection <br />623 <br />of Roseville citizens, Member Bull opined an opportunity was needed allowing fresh input <br />624 <br />and attention to the fact this was coming forward again. <br />625 <br />Chair Boguszewski stated he did not want to take action if it couldbe subject to any civil <br />626 <br />or other action down the road. <br />627 <br />Under those circumstances, Mr. Paschke suggested it would be best to TABLE the <br />628 <br />project until an open house is held. <br />629 <br />Further discussion was held regarding the actual code language and best way to proceed <br />630 <br />at this point, pending clarification by the City Attorney. <br />631 <br />MOTION <br />632 <br />Member Boguszewskimoved, seconded by Member Murphyto TABLE this case <br />633 <br />until such time as a determination is made by the City Attorney as to the best <br />634 <br />procedure with which to proceed, at which time the case will be brought back <br />635 <br />before the Planning Commission. <br />636 <br />With Member Daire requesting a comparison of these proposed lot sizes on County Road <br />637 <br />B compared to others adjacent to Acorn Road; Mr. Bilotta clarified that, with this item now <br />638 <br />tabled,it was inappropriate to continue any discussion related to this case. <br />639 <br />Ayes:7 <br />640 <br />Nays: 0 <br />641 <br />Abstentions: 0 <br />642 <br />Motion carried. <br />643 <br />6.Adjourn <br />644 <br />Chair Boguszewski adjourned at approximately 8:58 p.m. <br />645 <br /> <br />