2014_1110_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

AttachmentA EMO8,2014, XTRACT OF THE INUTES OF THE CTOBER RPC OSEVILLE LANNING OMMISSION c.Project File 0017-Amendment 22 Request by the Community Development Department to amend certain requirements contained in Roseville Zoning Code, Section 1009.07 (Developer Open House Meetings) to be consistent with similar requirements contained within Title 11, Subdivision Code Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m. Based on City Council direction, City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the proposed amendments as detailed in lines 41 – 62 of the staff report dated October 8, 2014, in an effort to provide consistency and for an additional requirement for a developer to provide a written summary of the open house and a list of those attending, as detailed in lines 55 – 60 of the staff report. Mr. Paschke summarized the comments received by staff from Member Stellmach earlier today; and his question as to whether current language in only “encouraging” the developer to provide a list of names/addresses of attendees was too loose versus “requiring” that a summary be sent out. Mr. Paschke advised that he had responded to Member Stellmach that it was implied that a sheet was put out at the open house and attendees could sign in and be included in that list as well as what was copied to the City with a meeting summary, along with a request from those attending receive a copy of the summary in case their perception of what transpired or the information contained in the summary was not interpreted the same. Mr. Paschke advised that this would then allow those attending to provide the City Council with their own summary in addition to that provided by the developer. Mr. Paschke opined that he didn’t find a conflict with the current zoning ordinance and language as proposed. At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that the proposed text amendments in Items B, C, and E were mimicking other areas of code specific to developer open houses; and confirmed that if the Planning Commission preferred to change the “encouraged” phraseology, it would need to be changed in other areas of City Code to bring everything into compliance and consistency. Member Boguszewski agreed that if the new phrase about mailing a copy, it lent heat to the “encouragement” part; however, since the new phraseology didn’t occur in other code language as adopted to-date, it may imply an intent if adopted that it be added to other areas of code upon future text amendments. Mr. Lloyd noted, as referenced with the new Subdivision Code, consistent language would be written into that revision versus a separate text amendment. Member Boguszewski expressed his concern that if text amendments to the new Subdivision code included this new phrase (E. Summary), “encouraging” a list of attendees be kept and submitted with the open house summary, and agreed with Member Stellmach that language would be looser than intended. Mr. Paschke reviewed his recollection of City Council discussions where they indicated they did not want to require a sign in sheet; and if you attended an open house, everyone and anyone had the ability to send the City your review encapsulating the meeting, but the developer would be required to provide a summary as part of their open house requirements, with the City Council then able to discuss the merits of what actually occurred at the open house. From his perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that the