Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 <br />Page 13 <br />and/or School District staff for revised language of item D.1.c; examples at the <br />614 <br />Fairview softball field and current location of the facility tucked near an Oak tree <br />615 <br />for screening purposes; the need for screening that wouldn’t’ be too restrictive for <br />616 <br />users find them while not creating additional vandalism or other safety or <br />617 <br />nuisance issues, in addition to allowing for access for cleaning. <br />618 <br />FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION <br />619 <br />Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Cook to amend the <br />620 <br />original motion to strike D.1.b, lines 1039 and 1040, and reformatting items <br />621 <br />a. and c. accordingly. <br />622 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />623 <br />Nays: 0 <br />624 <br />Motion carried. <br />625 <br />c. PROJECT FILE 0017 <br />626 <br />Request by the Roseville Planning Division to adopt new regulations for <br />627 <br />Title 10, Zoning Regulations of the City Code pertaining to Administration <br />628 <br />Vice Chair Boerigter continued the Public Hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at <br />629 <br />9:13 p.m. <br />630 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request for comment on the new <br />631 <br />Administration and Enforcement section of Title 10, as detailed in the Request for <br />632 <br />Planning Commission Action dated November 17, 2010. Mr. Paschke noted the <br />633 <br />new chapter, compiled from a number of sections found in the existing code, or <br />634 <br />developed for articulating specifics, and at the direction of the City Attorney as a <br />635 <br />stand alone, or separate and distinct chapter. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had <br />636 <br />received additional comments and slight modifications recommended by the City <br />637 <br />Attorney earlier today for incorporation into the final document, with overall <br />638 <br />support of the document. <br />639 <br />Discussion included sections related to the duties of the Planning Commission in <br />640 <br />making recommendations, not final decisions; composition of the Commission <br />641 <br />and their length of terms and staggering of those terms to allow continuity of the <br />642 <br />body; and Variance Board. <br />643 <br />Vice Chair Boerigter questioned Section 6.b.1 and the need for the term “literal,” <br />644 <br />with Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Paschke advising that they would discuss that with the <br />645 <br />City Attorney and if not deviating from the spirit of the code, remove the term. <br />646 <br />Further discussion included the role of the Planning Division in administrative <br />647 <br />procedures; make up of the Design Review Committee (DRC); and their role in <br />648 <br />enforcement. <br />649 <br />Public Comment <br />650 <br />Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 9:21p.m., with no one <br />651 <br />appearing for or against. <br />652 <br />MOTION <br />653 <br />Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Best to RECOMMEND <br />654 <br />TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the proposed DRAFT <br />655 <br />ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT ordinance as presented, and as <br />656 <br />detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated November <br />657 <br />17, 2010; amended as follows: <br />with correction noted about term of Planning <br />658 <br />Commissioners; and no final authority on Interim Uses. <br />659 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />660 <br />Nays: 0 <br />661 <br />Motion carried. <br />662 <br />7. Adjourn <br />663 <br /> <br />Vice Chair Boerigter adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:24 p.m. <br />664 <br />