2014-10-08_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Page 4 would be interesting to him personally to find out from the Roseville City Attorney if this 152 informaladministrative process was a defacto public hearing and if the DRC was the 153 appropriate venue to have that hearing or whether it should be the Planning Commission 154 or CityCouncil as was previously the case. 155 Member Boguszewski questioned if the DRC meetingswere recorded or if their meeting 156 minutes were available, along with a list of those attending and making decisions, or 157 those concerns and comments brought forward by the public. 158 Mr. Lloyd responded that, for the administrative deviation process there were no minutes 159 per se, but a series of findings or criteria was used for consistent consideration for each 160 type of application; with notes taken specific to those various considerations, and a 161 representation of those things discussed and pertaining to each point. 162 Member Boguszewski noted if that was the case, but the notes or minutes were not 163 generally available on the City’s website, if the City Attorney found that record 164 satisfactory, then he was in agreement.However, Member Boguszewski opined that if a 165 decision was made by a body, even by staff or the DRC, he thought it seemed in the 166 public’s interest to have access to those discussion points, a vote and other discussion 167 via recorded minutes. 168 Beyond what is or is not legal at this point, Community Development Director Paul Bilotta 169 asked the Commission to focus on what was being presented as well as what had not 170 been provided by staff, but something they wanted to see.Mr. Bilotta assured the 171 Commission that staff was seeking any and all input from the body in this early stage of 172 revising language. 173 Member Boguszewski advised that, once the City Attorney was consulted and provided 174 his written legal opinion for the next meeting, the Commission could then make a better 175 determination of proposed language. 176 Chair Gisselquist stated that he was fairly comfortable with the proposed language, 177 recognizing that it needed to be formalized; however, he expressed interest in hearing 178 from the City Attorney as well. 179 Specific to line 129, Member Boguszewski sought staff’s rationale in the ten year 180 limitation for parcels created by a subdivision created within that timeframe prior to the 181 application. 182 Mr. Lloyd responded with several examples and the potential for repeated subdivisions, 183 allowing for a less formal or significant process; thus applying the time limit in an attempt 184 to avoid such a situation or to avoid contentious issues. 185 Member Daire spoke in support of staff noticing any appeal process to allow for redress. 186 MOTION 187 At approximately 7:10p.m., Member Boguszewskimoved, seconded by Member 188 Murphyto CONTINUE the Public Hearing to a subsequent meeting of the Planning 189 Commission. 190 Ayes: 7 191 Nays: 0 192 Motion carried. 193 6.Adjourn 194 Chair Gisselquistadjourned at approximately 7:11p.m. 195