2015-06-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Page 3 Chair Boguszewski attempted to summarize Ms. McCormick’s intent with her comments 96 that her concerns in general, were that when something arises prompting other 97 conditions or a modification of conditions that may be warranted for a land use, even 98 though the Planning Commission and City Council had subsequently approved that use 99 after staff’s analysis and recommendation, the public should be alerted before formal 100 action rather than staff simply working with the applicant to ensure those conditions and 101 approvals were complied with rather than holding further public hearings. 102 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke concurred with the Chair’s summary; 103 noting that the first step would be for staff to appear before the City Council to seek their 104 direction and any clarification they felt was warranted specific to the condition itself, and 105 their determination whether modifications could happen for the condition based on the 106 proposal and any other factors known or not known at that time. Mr. Paschke stated that 107 would be the appropriate process under current City Code. 108 Speaking as the Commission Chair, Chair Boguszewski agreed that he found the current 109 process to be sufficient and needing to come to fruition. However, Chair Boguszewski 110 agreed that the Planning Commission was accountable to and representative of all 111 Roseville citizens and the broader community; and understood that Commissioners were 112 expected to follow that process at the Commission and/or City Council level as 113 applicable. 114 For this specific land use issue, as he’d addressed in the meeting minutes he’d 115 previously referenced, Chair Boguszewski stated that he found no reason to doubt that 116 the condition was meant to be complied with by the applicant as stated, and not less than 117 that, and that it would incumbent upon them to comply accordingly. If there appeared to 118 be any suggestion that the applicant intended to address that condition in some other 119 way, Chair Boguszewski asked that the City Council or Planning Commission get 120 involved to overturn the original motion; and sought concurrence with his rationale by his 121 colleagues at the dais. 122 Chair Boguszewski noted his observance of recent budget requests by Community 123 Development Director Bilotta addressing the increasing number of conditions and 124 variance occurring, prompting the potential for more staff resources to accommodate, 125 assess and analyze those requests. Chair Boguszewski noted the examples provide by 126 Mr. Bilotta, including the time spent on the subject IU request in particular, creating the 127 need for additional assessments and staff time. 128 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke clarified that the applicant had received 129 approval of their IU one year ago, but had been unable to obtain financing until recently, 130 and therefore had just begun work on the site. Mr. Paschke clarified that having IU 131 approval and moving forward with redevelopment and the building permit process were 132 under two entirely different timelines. For further clarification purposes, Mr. Paschke 133 advised that conditions would be applied at the time of the actual improvement, and 134 would be addressed (e.g. fence installation) prior to the City issuing their Certificate of 135 Occupancy. 136 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke agreed that the Commission could consider 137 addressing a timeframe for conditions as part of their or subsequent City Council 138 approval. 139 Member Bull thanked Ms. McCormick for her comments; and agreed that the 140 observations of the community were needed to supplement the limited eyes of the 141 Planning Commission as a citizen enforcement agency or that available with limited staff 142 resources. 143 Member Gitzen agreed with Chair Boguszewski’s comments regarding the process itself, 144 and the response of City Planner Paschke. Member Gitzen expressed his only caution 145 with additional timelines would be any negative impacts on the financing for applicants 146 that may tie their hands too much. 147