2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 2 coming in, confirming that Roseville took care of its residents, it would set expectations 48 and ensure a collaborative relationship took place. 49 From his observation, Chair Boguszewski opined that Ms. McCormick was addressing 50 two different levels in her comments: the specifics of the Vogel IUProject, and the 51 general concept that a deadline should be put in place to meet conditions related to 52 occupancy of a facility. 53 Regarding the general concept, Chair Boguszewski deferred to staff about whether 54 provisions were in place; and agreed with the potential that without expectations set up, 55 there could be situations developing that may prove problematic.However, at the same 56 time, Chair Boguszewski opined that some conditions may prove difficult to impose on 57 specific timeframe, based on timing and business conditions, but spoke in support of the 58 conditions being met prior to occupancy. 59 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke responded that there is no specific 60 deadline defined for the Vogel project; and explained part of the delay had been the 61 company working through the corporate process with Xcel Energy in tree trimming and 62 related items.At the time that is resolved, Mr. Paschke advised that Vogel would finalize 63 development of their plan and submit it to staff for their review and approval.At the 64 prompting of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke confirmed that Vogel still intended to and 65 would be held accountable to meet their conditions of IU approval; and once the final 66 details were worked out, they would submit their plan, including location of the fence in 67 accordance with City Code provisions. 68 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke admitted there was not currently a 69 notification process or deadline in place, but expectations were that resolution was close. 70 Mr. Paschke suggested a deadline clause for IU approval may be food for thought in the 71 future; however, he did not think it could be imposed on the VogelIU at this time and 72 after initial approval. If the concern is in getting things in place prior to occupancy, Mr. 73 Paschke advised this should be addressed as part of the approval and resolution 74 process; but clarified that standards of approval and occupancy were based on two 75 entirely different things and processes, and were not always related to conditions. 76 Community Development Director Paul Bilotta stated that, in this specific issue and 77 timeline issues, the City had issued a 60-day temporary occupancy provision for Vogel, 78 but expected things to be worked out long before that deadline.Mr. Bilotta advised that 79 the temporary occupancy was issued on June 18, 2015, and would expire in August. 80 Chair Boguszewski asked that staff provide a brief update on future Planning 81 Commission agendas specific to this project. 82 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Bilotta advised that to-date, no hard and fast 83 deadline was in place or had been discussed at the staff level to ensure an applicant met 84 conditions, other than regular monitoring by staff.Mr. Bilotta advised that such a 85 provision could certainly be worked into conditions in the future.Mr. Bilotta noted another 86 project and previous IU approved by the Planning Commission (Boaters Outlet) that had 87 yet to be completed and also requiring staff follow-up as a normal course of business. 88 At the suggestion of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Bilotta agreed that the Commission could 89 apply deadlines as a condition specific to each project; and then any weather-related 90 situations could also be accommodated. 91 Ms. McCormick clarified that she was not suggesting a hard and fast rule, but only a 92 general policy or guideline with allowances for an extension based on extenuating 93 circumstances.Ms. McCormick noted that not many residents spoke up or were even 94 aware or when or how to do so.If taken on a case by case basis and dependent on the 95 process, Ms. McCormick opined that it would not require residents to show up at a 96 meeting to bring it to attention. 97