PL PACKET 09182012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 21, 2012 Page 3 would not be as attractive as having the shorter 10' side in the placement they propose because this would reduce the visual impact. Chair Heinis asked how far the corner of the shed would be from the property line. He also asked if it was possible to move the shed two or three feet further into the yard. 7 Ms. Guertin stated the shed would be three feet from the fence line itself and another three feet 8 from the property line. She indicated they would consider moving the shed towards the house. 9 10 Chair Heinis stated this matter will be considered at a public hearing on September 18`h 11 12 VIII. OTHER BUSINESS. 13 14 VIII. 1. Revise Planning Commission Meeting Schedule. 15 16 Interim City Planner Corkle requested that the Planning Commission consider changing its 17 meeting schedule to the 4`h Monday of the month beginning in October. She stated this change 18 would be helpful to staff by providing extra turnaround time following Planning Commission 19 meetings to get materials ready for the City Council. 20 21 Commissioner Chaput requested that meeting materials be provided to the Planning 22 Commissioners sufficiently in advance of a Monday meeting because this change in meeting 23 schedule could impact Commissioners who leave town for a long weekend. 24 25 Interim City Planner Corkle agreed that staff would provide meeting materials sufficiently in 26 advance of a Monday meeting. 27 28 Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Niccum, to recommend the City 29 Council revise the Planning Commission meeting schedule to the 4'h Monday of the month 30 beginning October 22, 2012. 31 32 Motion carried 5 -0. 33 34 VIII.2. Discussion on Concept Review Process. 35 36 Interim City Planner Corkle explained that communities do not typically schedule concept 37 reviews for CUP requests, interim use permits, or variance requests that are relatively simple in 38 nature and concept reviews are generally used for larger developments or for major 39 redevelopments. She stated she spoke with Mr. Casey and Ms. Johnson regarding whether the 40 City needs a concept review process given the recent staff transition as well as the detailed 41 information now being provided in the staff reports. She added that staff is making sure to meet 42 with applicants before their applications are accepted to make sure all required information is 43 submitted and suggested that the Planning Commission review and approve or deny applications 44 at one meeting rather than having applicants go through the current multi -stage process which is 45 confusing for applicants and takes additional staff time and resources. 46