PC 12/11/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Horan, Hovingh, Michelotti, Wright, and Chairman Mahem None Commissioner McGuirk None Resolution No. PC-91-113 was entered and adopted recommending approval of Case PUD- 91-12 as motioned. MATTERS TNTTJATIm FOR COMMISSION'S REVIEW 1. Chairman Mahem raised the issue of a letter received from Mayor Mercer regarding the Planning Commission meeting that lasted until 3:30 a.m. Discussion ensued as to the best way to cut down long meetings. It was noted that the Commission could read the staff report more thoroughly and refrain from helping the applicant redesign projects that were inappropriate. It was noted by staff that such cases could be continued; however, staff would appreciate some guidance as to what the Commission feels and what would be acceptable in a case that is continued. Commissioner Horan wished the record to reflect that he would like the staff to present an executive summary to possibly speed things up. Chairman Mahem requested that if staff is not able to distribute a staff report for a Planning Commission meeting by the Friday evening before the meeting, the case be continued to the next meeting. The rest of the Commission agreed with this request. Commissioner Michelotti pointed out that staff must take "the heat" from the applicants when a case is continued. 2. At this time Doug Brobst, 1709 Magnolia Ct. came to the podium and questioned the Commission as to why his Case No. Z-91-86 was appealed. Commissioner Hovingh responded that some members of the Design Review Board thought it was too large for the site and that the case should be appealed. Further questioning by Mr. Brobst took place. Mr. Beougher, City Attorney, injected that this was not the proper time to debate the actual project. Mark and Kathryn Pittenger, 492 McDuff Avenue, Fremont, asked for further clarification on the appeals process. A. Future Planning Calendar No action required. Minutes Planning Commission December 11, 1991 Page 17