2013_0812_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A Page 1 of 3 E XTRACT FROM THE R EGULAR M EETING OF THE R OSEVILLE P LANNING C OMMISSION , J ULY 10,2013 a. PROJECT FILE 0017 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT to Title 11, Subdivision Ordinance, to create requirements for an open house for land divisions of four (4) or greater lots or parcels Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at 6:42 p.m. City Planner Paschke reviewed the request of the Planning Division seeking a text amendment to Section 1102.01 (Procedure) of the Subdivision Chapter of Roseville City Code, creating language requiring a Developer Open House prior to submittal of land divisions of four (4) or greater lots or parcels. Mr. Paschke advised that this issue had come forward at the direction of the City Council as a result of discussions and resident concerns for a recent redevelopment and lot split proposal for Josephine Heights Preliminary Plat approval. Member Boguszewski questioned the intent for requiring that the open house be held at a public location versus a private residence; with Mr. Paschke responding that this was also at the direction of the City Council for holding the meetings in public locations; with staff’s support of that direction, since open houses at the specific development site were not always feasible. Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of holding the meetings at a public location to ensure neutral territory; with Member Murphy concurring, and adding that this also addressed any ADA or environmental issues for those members of the public wishing to attend, with the majority of public facilities meeting those requirements. Discussion ensued regarding Sections B.4 and 5 regarding the developer’s submittal of an open house summary; if there should be more specificity to determine the notice area rather than just addressing property owners in the “vicinity” of a development project, even though notice areas are established elsewhere in code (Section 1008) to avoid any confusion and/or ambiguities and to provide everyone in the notice area to have a deciding voice. Further discussion included Section 5.E.2 and the mechanism for the Planning Commission’s report (e.g. meeting minutes and/or staff repo rt and attachments); future additional pending revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance beyond this addition, hopefully coming before the Commission before year-end; City Council directive fo r this open house to be triggered with four (4) or more parcels; and clarification of new or revised section existing code, erroneously provided in this iteration of the staff report. Member Boguszewski asked staff to consider ho w best to edit Section 5.E.2 to ensure that the Commission’s decision will be documented prior to City Council action (e.g. 10 days from the public hearing). Member Daire requested staff’s rationale for language in Section B.2 (Timing) of “… not more than 15-45 days…” Mr. Paschke advised the intent was to ensure the open house was held not too far in advance of the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing, but not immediately before it as well to allow the public and developer to respond to or mitigate any concerns raised at the open house. Member Daire suggested revising proposed language to read: “not less than fifteen (15) days or more than forty-five (45) days…;” with staff and Commissioner consensus. Member Daire suggested that Section B.5. (Summary Submission) be revised to include a requirement that a list of names and associated a ddresses be part of that submission, provided via a sign-up sheet at the open house to ensure comments from those with specific concerns within the notification area would be heard.