CC_Minutes_2017_0313 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 13, 2017 Page 7 Councilmember Laliberte agreed that this was a big and important step; but noted that it didn't necessarily address all of the concerns she'd heard expressed in the community over the years; and therefore, agreed that there was more to do. Mayor Roe spoke in support of the motion. Based on the comments brought to his attention in a variety of contexts related to this ordinance, Mayor Roe stated he had heard universal support expressed from a variety of backgrounds, indicat- ing that the city was on the right track. While agreeing that there were other is- sues still needing to be addressed, Mayor Roe opined that the models provided from the Cities of Bloomington and Shakopee were considered by him to be more regulatory in nature beyond the parameters of resources in Roseville. Roll Call (original Motion as Amended) Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe. Nays: None. Roll Call Ayes: Willmus, Etten, McGehee, Laliberte, and Roe. Nays: None. Recess Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:52 p.m., and reconvened at approximately 6:56 p.m. c. Consider Text Amendments to City Code, Chapters 1009.07 and 1102.01 Pertaining to Developer Open House Meeting Requirements As detailed in the RCA, City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized this request, advising that the recoinmendation was for a resolution allowing more flexibility than ordinance as this continued to evolve and allowing more specificity for any particular proj ect. In the RCA (line 172), Councilmember Etten questioned if the intent was in stipu- lating the time of a meeting or the minimum amount of time as two hours. Mr. Paschke stated that the intent was to provide a general guide requiring a two hour open house that could be at a certain time, consist of more than one meeting, but overall for the duration of two hours at a minimum. While agreeing with the concept of providing more flexibility in most areas and adjustments made accordingly, Councilmember Etten questioned if there should be more restrictive language than "should". Mr. Paschke noted that language didn't dictate "shall" or "must," and therefore from his perspective allowed the flexibility for staff to work with an applicant on an appropriate timeframe.