2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 7 b. PROJECT FILE 001, Subdivision Ordinance 296 Request by the Community Development Department to amend in its entirety Title 297 11, Subdivision of Roseville City Code 298 Chair Gisselquist continued the Public Hearing for Project File 001 at 7:23 p.m. 299 Since the previous discussion at the July Planning Commission meeting, and based on 300 recommendation by the Planning Commission to consult with the City Attorney specific to 301 the enforcement text in the draft, Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd advised that staff had 302 determined that this section was a good candidate for revision sooner rather than later, 303 with similar language included in the current zoning code. Mr. Lloyd advised that due to 304 reasons detailed in the staff report dated August 6, 2014, the City Attorney has 305 suggested that the subdivision code may not need an enforcement provision and that 306 section should be taken out of the draft and possibly revised and/or reintroduced later if 307 deemed necessary. 308 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Lloyd advised that there had been no historical 309 enforcement of this section of the Subdivision Code to-date, as the Building Permit 310 process regulated the accuracy of property subdivisions. 311 Mr. Bilotta suggested that the only exception he was aware of was grading between 312 preliminary and final plat approvals; however, he noted that part of that was also 313 proposed to be removed from the Subdivision Ordinance and applied to other areas of 314 City Code. 315 Mr. Paschke noted that, specific to the Subdivision Ordinance itself, the preliminary plat 316 only represented lines on paper indicating lots, blocks and parcels; and was subject to 317 administrative review by staff and approval before being recorded at Ramsey County; 318 and if the subdivision was not done correctly, the City would not sign off on the document 319 for recording purposes, providing direct enforcement. Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised 320 that the City Attorney say no need for a separate enforcement section as currently 321 provided. 322 Mr. Bilotta noted that, once recorded, it couldn’t be undone, but Developer Agreements 323 could be provided to continue enforcement clauses as applicable. 324 Member Boguszewski spoke in support of that City Attorney opinion; and agreed it was 325 better to leave it out to avoid any possible difficulties with the wording and risk of being 326 negative legislation indicating any preemptory misdemeanor or guilt. 327 Member Daire spoke in support of the City Attorney recommendation as well, opining that 328 he much preferred carrots to sticks, and found this to make sense and be wise advice. 329 Member Murphy concurred, opining that it provided for a useful simplification. 330 Mr. Bilotta advised that, once the entire Subdivision Code revision was ready, staff would 331 re-notice a Public Hearing to allow public testimony. However, Mr. Bilotta suggested 332 continuing the public hearing at this point to allow for further discussion as the language 333 was redrafted. 334 Specific to the discussion of park dedications, Mr. Bilotta asked if the Commission 335 preferred to discuss that first, jointly with them, or seek input from the Parks & Recreation 336 Commission first, with consensus of the body being that the Park & Recreation 337 Commission provide their feedback first, given the difficulty of finding a suitable time for 338 both Commissions to meet together. Depending on the Park & Recreation Commission’s 339 schedule, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff may bring something else form the Subdivision 340 Code before the Planning Commission in September while awaiting other feedback. 341 Chair Gisselquist recessed the Public Hearing at 7:30 p.m.; no one appeared for or 342 against. 343