pm_900207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION Page:f/: 7 Wednesday, February 7, 1990 DeBenedet commented that he assumed that the staff had enough review time but that may not be the case. DeBenedet suggested that a longer staff review process might help. He commented that applications that are not complete should not be referred to the Planning Commission. Jopke added that by complete, it means that all the items are initially submitted. We cannot stop the process in midstream and thus, items need to be continued when not complete. Thomas suggested building in exceptions. DeBenedet stated that he has trouble continuing applications. He commented that he doesn't feel it is fair to the applicant. He stated that he likes it if the staff and the applicant have worked together extensively prior to meeting with the Planning Commission. Jopke commented that the applicant occasionally tries to get around the system. Wietecki commented that adequate and very good, complete applications should be moved forward quickly in a reasonable amount of time. wietecki stated that it gives good developers the opportunity to save some time. Berry commented that the public and the Planning Commission end up going through two long hearings when the application is not prepared. Berry added that the applicant should not be allowed a public hearing if not ready. Goedeke questioned whether or not the design review committee would be involved before the applicant was involved in the public hearing. Dahlgren stated that the Design Review Committee would be used instead of the Planning Commission for aesthetic items, making the process tougher and more exact. If not complete, it does not go forward. Cushman suggested a list of items to refer to the Planning Commission. DeBenedet recommended that the meeting be stopped at 10:00 p.m. and continued until Wednesday, February 21, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. Further discussions ensued regarding the planning time frame and potential modifications that could occur. After reviewing the