2012-02-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Page 8 borne by the City; education for employee children; or food subsidies to feed those 353 children required as a result of parents working in this particular low-wage situation). Ms. 354 Ramalingam noted that those considerations were not included in the Government 355 Decision triangle included in the staff report; and questioned whether there was any 356 venue to address these concerns. 357 Mr. Paschke reiterated that the decision before the Commission tonight was not whether 358 to support the Site Plan or the size of the proposed retail use on that site per se; but for 359 their consideration of and potential recommendation to the City Council supporting this 360 land division to create or reassemble lots in place into three (3) lots. From a process 361 standpoint, Mr. Paschke advised that staff based the Planning Division recommendation 362 to the Planning Commission for approval based on the lot lines, easements, and 363 additional right-of-way meeting requirements of subdivision and zoning ordinances of the 364 City. 365 Related to disposal of the 4,300 square feet of property currently owned by the City, Mr. 366 Paschke advised that this action required a slightly different analysis for determination; 367 but reiterated that those two items were not tied directly to a specific project or a given lot 368 in Roseville; and therefore, no forum was available for vetting them, or any Public 369 Hearing process to review and approve them based on those concerns raised, other than 370 those provided to staff and forwarded to the City Council or received directly by the City 371 Council. 372 Ms. Ramalingam thanked Mr. Paschke for the thoroughness of his response; however, 373 she opined that it clearly showed a gap in the process itself. 374 Mr. Paschke recognized Ms. Ramalingam’s opinion; however, he noted that staff’s 375 charge and instructions were based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance and Codes in place 376 that were used by the Planning Division to enforce, as well as the Regulating Plan 377 designed and governing the Twin Lakes Redevelopment area, that didn’t instruct staff 378 differently than the process currently used and as recently adopted. Mr. Paschke advised 379 that the Planning Division was unable to fundamentally change the process; and was 380 required to use the same process throughout the City of Roseville for any project or 381 application coming forward, in order to avoid preferential treatment. Mr. Paschke 382 reiterated that it was staff’s charge to enforce and implement the requirements within the 383 Zoning Ordinance. 384 Ms. Ramalingam suggested that staff provide the City Council with the public comments 385 and concerns received related to this proposal; with Mr. Paschke assured her that the 386 City Council would receive minutes of tonight’s meeting so they would be aware of public 387 sentiment. 388 In response to repeated cell phone interruptions during tonight’s meeting, Ms. 389 Ramalingam asked that the Planning Commission or the City Council itself make a policy 390 statement or accommodation to address such interruptions during public speaking, noting 391 the difficulty in following procedures and in hearing discussions due to those distractions. 392 For the benefit of the public and listening audience, Member Gisselquist provided 393 examples of issues that were heard by the Planning Commission (e.g. pawn shop 394 request near Snelling Avenue as a Conditional Use based on zoning considerations) and 395 other uses that are on the list of allowed uses (e.g. Source Comic Books at the same 396 location) that do not come before the Commission since they are allowed uses. Member 397 Gisselquist noted that, as long as the use met zoning requirements at a specific 398 development site, there was less public involvement that occurred. 399 Member Strohmeier opined that City Code language related to Preliminary Plat approval 400 (Chapter 1102.03) seemed to be broad. However, the health, welfare and general safety 401 of citizens would appear to be applicable in one or more of those categories with some of 402 the concerns being raised by citizens. Member Strohmeier suggested that, considering 403 that broad language, perhaps the Commission’s hands were not as tied as indicated. 404