2011-02-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 02, 2011 Page 6 demographical change of the Commission that may indicate a different vote than the 256 original split vote. 257 Member Wozniak spoke in support of supporting the administrative decision and denying 258 the appeal. Member Wozniak opined that he had heard nothing from the City Attorney or 259 City staff that convinced him that the Community Development Department’s decision in 260 December was anything other than legitimate and legal. 261 Member Wozniak also encouraged members of the audience to pursue options open to 262 them for revisiting the issue to the best of their ability and as allowed by City Code; and 263 asked that during the discussion or following the vote on a motion, those options were 264 clearly defined in the record for the adjacent property owners to pursue a zoning change 265 toward a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 266 Chair Boerigter reviewed the options available to initiate a change in the Comprehensive 267 Plan in a situation such as this would be for the Planning Commission or City Council to 268 initiate it of the subject property owner. 269 Member Wozniak noted the requests of audience members for the Planning Commission 270 to take such action tonight; however, it was apparent that there was not sufficient support 271 among Commissioners to do so tonight; and questioned the best method for the property 272 owners to come back before the Commission. 273 Mr. Paschke advised that their best option would be to lobby the City Council, seeking a 274 super majority, or four (4) votes as required to for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, 275 similar to the support that would be required if staff were to attempt a Comprehensive 276 Plan Amendment and follow the same process. Mr. Paschke advised that, without that 277 super majority support, the land use designation and zoning remained as it was with the 278 same issues and concerns at play. 279 Member Gottfried concurred with Member Wozniak that there appeared to be limited 280 interest in the Planning Commission pursuing the issue, and that it would prove a waste 281 of time until it was evident that there was sufficient City Council support. 282 MOTION 283 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND that the 284 petitioners do not have standing pursuant to Roseville City Code, Section 201.07 285 or otherwise to petition for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and that the 286 Community Development Director made the proper decision not to proceed with 287 the request made by the Woods Edge Homeowners Association and the Old 288 Highway 8 Neighborhood residents in their petition. 289 Ayes: 5 290 Nays: 0 291 Motion carried. 292 City Attorney Bartholdi left the meeting at this time, approximately 7:33 p.m. 293 b. PUBLIC HEARING - PROJECT FILE 0017 294 Request by the Roseville Planning Division for a public hearing regarding 295 amendments to the following chapters of the Zoning Code: Introduction; 296 Administration and Enforcement; Residential Districts; Commercial and Mixed Use 297 Districts; Employment Districts; Institutional District; Shoreland, Wetland, and 298 Storm Water Management; and Sexually Oriented Uses 299 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed those chapters not included in the focus 300 of previous updates to the revised Zoning Code; and additional items that were 301 inadvertently omitted, chapters not rewritten during the comprehensive update, and/or as 302 staff became aware of minor corrections and amendments during day-to-day use of the 303 new code. Each remaining chapter was then specifically presented by staff and 304 discussed among Commissioners and staff; and further detailed in the Request for 305 Planning Action dated February 2, 2011. 306