2011-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 03, 2011 Page 16 Chair Boerigter suggested that in the language related to development agreements, it 760 may make sense to expand upon and clarify language so that if a developer met other 761 requirements, there would be no additional “hoops” added on at the point of the 762 development agreement; and asked that staff consider how best to address that intent in 763 their revisions. 764 Member Strohmeier concurred with other Members that he was not yet ready to 765 recommend this ordinance to the City Council for approval; and that it be tabled for 766 another month. Member Strohmeier opined that he wasn’t entirely sure about his 767 conclusions in tying costs to zoning ordinance; and while not opposed to such a 768 provision, opined that the developer should have environmental accountability. Member 769 Strohmeier further opined that this was a good first start; however, he would prefer that 770 more infrastructure mitigation be required, specifically related to environmental provisions 771 and habitat corridor issues, opining that current language was too vague, and he 772 preferred more green space also be addressed in the ordinance in its next draft. 773 Member Cook asked that, at the next meeting when this is brought forward again, that 774 the City Engineer be present, or include a report on how the trips were generated and 775 how they were formulated; as well as an update on costs if available for that meeting. 776 While recognizing that there may be perfectly logical rationale, Member Wozniak, along 777 that line, opined that it would be helpful to have staff provide additional information and 778 clarification to the Commission on why there appeared to be such a disparity in trips 779 along different parcels, even those adjacent to each other. 780 Chair Boerigter concurred with those additional requests by Commissioners, and so 781 directed staff to include them in their future reports. 782 MOTION 783 Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski, to RECOMMEND 784 TABLING consideration of the proposed Twin Lakes Overlay District Zoning 785 Ordinance; as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated 786 August 3, 2011, until the September Planning Commission meeting. 787 Ayes: 6 788 Nays: 0 789 Motion carried. 790 c. PROJECT FILE 0017 791 Request by Roseville City Council for approval of a ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT to 792 allow accessory dwelling units in LDR-1 Districts as permitted rather than 793 conditional uses. 794 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at 8:34 p.m. 795 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd highlighted and briefly summarized staff’s proposed 796 zoning text amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU’s) in LDR-1 Districts as 797 permitted rather than as Conditional Uses (CU’s). Mr. Lloyd advised that these 798 recommended amendments were based on practical application of the existing language 799 with the two (2) applications having already come forward; suggesting they be considered 800 as permitted uses with applicable permits for their regulation to a higher standard without 801 going through the CU approval process. 802 Recommended amendments were included in the packet materials as detailed in the 803 Request for Planning Commission Action dated August 3, 2011; and based on the 804 comments of Section 2-3 and input received from tonight’s public hearing. 805 Member Boguszewski advised that his only question was related to Chapter 1011.12, 806 Section B.6.b-d as it addressed a maximum occupancy of two (2) people (line 9), noting 807 that the previous language used square footage guidelines, and those now seemed to be 808 removed. Member Boguszewski questioned the rationale for that change; and why staff 809 was recommending square footage guidelines and moving toward occupancy as the 810 limiting number. 811