2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 2 6, 2013 (Attachment C); based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and 45 the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013. 46 Ayes: 6 47 Nays: 0 48 Motion carried. 49 Council action related to this action is anticipated at their July 22, 2013 meeting. 50 b. PROJECT FILE 0017 51 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT 52 AMENDMENT to Title 11, Subdivision Ordinance, to create requirements for an 53 open house for land divisions of four (4) or greater lots or parcels 54 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at 6:42 p.m. 55 City Planner Paschke reviewed the request of the Planning Division seeking a text 56 amendment to Section 1102.01 (Procedure) of the Subdivision Chapter of Roseville City 57 Code, creating language requiring a Developer Open House prior to submittal of land 58 divisions of four (4) or greater lots or parcels. Mr. Paschke advised that this issue had 59 come forward at the direction of the City Council as a result of discussions and resident 60 concerns for a recent redevelopment and lot split proposal for Josephine Heights 61 Preliminary Plat approval. 62 Member Boguszewski questioned the intent for requiring that the open house be held at a 63 public location versus a private residence; with Mr. Paschke responding that this was 64 also at the direction of the City Council for holding the meetings in public locations; with 65 staff’s support of that direction, since open houses at the specific development site were 66 not always feasible. 67 Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of holding the meetings at a public location to ensure 68 neutral territory; with Member Murphy concurring, and adding that this also addressed 69 any ADA or environmental issues for those members of the public wishing to attend, with 70 the majority of public facilities meeting those requirements. 71 Discussion ensued regarding Sections B.4 and 5 regarding the developer’s submittal of 72 an open house summary; if there should be more specificity to determine the notice area 73 rather than just addressing property owners in the “vicinity” of a development project, 74 even though notice areas are established elsewhere in code (Section 1008) to avoid any 75 confusion and/or ambiguities and to provide everyone in the notice area to have a 76 deciding voice. 77 Further discussion included Section 5.E.2 and the mechanism for the Planning 78 Commission’s report (e.g. meeting minutes and/or staff report and attachments); future 79 additional pending revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance beyond this addition, hopefully 80 coming before the Commission before year-end; City Council directive for this open 81 house to be triggered with four (4) or more parcels; and clarification of new or revised 82 section existing code, erroneously provided in this iteration of the staff report. 83 Member Boguszewski asked staff to consider how best to edit Section 5.E.2 to ensure 84 that the Commission’s decision will be documented prior to City Council action (e.g. 10 85 days from the public hearing). 86 Member Daire requested staff’s rationale for language in Section B.2 (Timing) of “… not 87 more than 15-45 days…” 88 Mr. Paschke advised the intent was to ensure the open house was held not too far in 89 advance of the Planning Commission’s Public Hearing, but not immediately before it as 90 well to allow the public and developer to respond to or mitigate any concerns raised at 91 the open house. 92 Member Daire suggested revising proposed language to read: “not less than fifteen (15) 93 days or more than forty-five (45) days…;” with staff and Commissioner consensus. 94