pm_071003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes -Wednesday, October 03, 2007 Page 8 Commissioner Martinson opined that the current 2002 document could have been provided to many metropolitan suburbs, and didn't appear to be specific to or personalized for Roseville, but seemed more typical of urban planning done at that time. Concluding discussion included staff having a more detailed discussion with the City Council; and the need for the Planning Commission to receive additional background information and rationale from staff on whether the 2002 document was simply generic design standards, or more specifically what went into its development (i.e., rationale for small blocks; and how conclusions were reached for design principles incorporated into the document). Commissioner Wozniak sought additional information from staff on other areas where design principles have been used for specific development areas, from Roseville or other suburbs with similar projects. MOTION Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to recommend to the City Council that, given that the Planning Commission views the establishment of design principles as a critical component in the development of the Twin Lakes area, the Planning Commission respectfully requests that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to work with the City's Community Development Department staff to evaluate design principles that the Planning Commission sees of value in development of the Twin Lakes area; with periodic review by the City Council of those principles during their development and potential areas needed City Council policy creation or revision; and initial direction from the City Council to the Planning Commission on their priority items to consider in developing these design principles. Ayes: 7 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Staff Update on Planning Case Status and Process Mr. Paschke provided an indexed spreadsheet of planning cases heard in 2007 by the Variance Board and/or Planning Commission; and their status, based on City Council action. Chair Bakeman thanked staff for providing this initial information to the Commission to provide clarity on specific projects; and discussion ensued on refining the spreadsheet and project status updates. Commissioners sought additional information on the time between Planning Commission recommendation and City Council action; and how many times a case went before the Council to better allow the Commission to determine if they needed to provide additional information to the City Council to allow quicker action; and inserting a column indicating approval date, pending, withdrawn, or denied. The intent of the Commission was to have staff provide a comprehensive list of the last year's activity to determine where those cases are, between the Planning Commission and the City Council, with a City Council date where the specific case was heard, and the City Council's action. 7. Adjourn Chair Bakeman adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.