Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Roseville - Planning Commission Agenda for April 6, 2005 <br />project report dated April 6, 2005. <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />b. Planning File 3634: Request by City of Roseville Planning Commission for an amendment to the City Code <br />Section 1014.04 B4, revising the requirements for notice of final decision by the Variance Board to allow for <br />one mailed notice of the proposal and information on how to appeal a decision of the Variance Board at <br />least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. <br /> <br />Chair Traynor opened the hearing and requested City Planner Thomas Paschke to provide a verbal summary of the <br />project report dated April 6, 2005. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke indicated that the Variance Board has recommended a change to Section 1014.04 B4 of the City Code <br />relating to official notice prior to Variance Board hearings. The Board and staff recommend one comprehensive <br />written notice to property owners within 350 feet. The notice would contain the time and date of the hearing and the <br />process and time limits for appeals of the Variance Board decisions. <br />The current code requires the staff to send out individualized notices before and after the meeting. The "after <br />meeting" notice explains the action taken by the Board and also explains the appeal process. With the exception of <br />the action, which can be found at the meeting, on cable, and in minutes and on the web page, all mailed notice <br />materials could be simplified and reduced in expense with one "pre-meeting" mailing, 10 days in advance of the <br />meeting. <br />Chair Traynor asked that appeal process in paragraph B4 be placed in the notice. <br />Member Pust suggested that Section 108 (line 44) should be "to" instead of "upon", line 45 "to" the petitioner. <br />Both the Variance Board and the staff recommend the change as a means of simplification and reducing the cost <br />and time of the notice process. <br /> <br />Chair Traynor closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to recommend approval of the text <br />amendment as outlined in the staff report dated April 6, 2005, with Planning Commission changes as stated <br />in discussion. <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried <br /> <br />6. Information & Reports: <br /> <br />a. Adoption of Planning Commission By-Laws for 2005. <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch presented an ordinance, as adopted by the City Council on March 28, 2005, directing the Planning <br />Commission to elect one of its members to act as Chairperson effective April 1 of each year, rather than designation <br />by the City Council. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Pust to approve the 2005 By-Laws for the Planning <br />Commission, with annual election of officers as per the March 28th ordinance, and with distribution of the <br />following documents: <br />A. Conduct of a Public Hearing <br />B. Public Hearing Procedure (read by Chair prior to public hearings) <br />C. Definitions of Documents and Protocol Guidelines <br />D. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests <br />E. Code of Ethics for the Professional Planners (by American Planning Association) <br />F. Outline of Robert's Rules of Order <br />G. The Comprehensive Plan: Purpose and Planning Issues <br />H. Look Your Best on Cable T.V. <br />I. Checklist of Planning Questions <br />J. 14 Ways to Establish a Superior Planning Commission <br />K. City of Roseville Ethics Policy (if available - staff to research) <br /> <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br /> <br />http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/councillplanning/minutes/2005/pm050406.htm <br /> <br />6/20/2005 <br />