My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014_12_03_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2014
>
2014_12_03_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/22/2015 9:10:06 AM
Creation date
1/22/2015 9:10:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
12/3/2014
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, December 3, 2014 <br />Page 3 <br />Mr. Paschke pointed out a typographical error in the staff report, page 2, line 10, advising <br />92 <br />that the Hampton Inn would be 5 stories as well, so both hotels would be of five stories. <br />93 <br />Mr. Paschke further advised of an additional condition recommended by staff after <br />94 <br />distribution of the staff report, and as discussed before tonight’s meeting with property <br />95 <br />owners and their representatives. <br />96 <br />Community Development Director Paul Bilotta read the additional Condition G as follows <br />97 <br />and related to access easements: <br />98 <br />“The applicant will dedicate access easements across the property to serve <br />99 <br />adjacent parcels in a form as approved by the City Attorney and Community <br />100 <br />Development Director.” <br />101 <br />Discussion <br />102 <br />At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke advised that the exact location for <br />103 <br />potential access point requirements may not be identifiable through the planning process, <br />104 <br />but they would be defined by engineers and the traffic study as part of the process; with <br />105 <br />any changes available before or at the time of final plat approval, along with rights-of-way <br />106 <br />easement dedications, public improvement contracts as needed, and other <br />107 <br />documentation as required as part of the process. <br />108 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that Community Mixed Use <br />109 <br />zoning (CMU) had no height limit or number of stories. <br />110 <br />Member Murphy requested what the governing documents were, since the AUAR had <br />111 <br />expired, noting mention of the EAW waiver request. <br />112 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that, in September of 2012, the AUAR guiding document <br />113 <br />(Alternative Urban Area-wide Review) had expired, and in its place in October of 2012, <br />114 <br />the City Council had established a policy that all developments would go through the <br />115 <br />process of a voluntary Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) following <br />116 <br />Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) guidelines. Mr. Paschke noted that this applicant, <br />117 <br />as well as the applicant on the parcel sough of this one had requested the variance from <br />118 <br />the City Council. Mr. Paschke advised that staff was in the process of working through <br />119 <br />that waiver request; with a presentation planned before the City Council at their next <br />120 <br />regular business meeting seeking their support for a different process, or seeking <br />121 <br />direction from them related to development in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. <br />122 <br />Paschke advised that they may determine that this project be required to complete a <br />123 <br />voluntary EAW or provide them with another option. <br />124 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the formal EAW process can be lengthy and require a lot of <br />125 <br />information running through the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB, but was similar <br />126 <br />to the voluntary EAW administered by the city and tied into the former AUAR, which he <br />127 <br />opined was still a useful document. Mr. Paschke noted that many items hadn’t changed: <br />128 <br />traffic was still a concern with an project or development as well as the clean-up of the <br />129 <br />land, both issues the City wanted additional information on. Mr. Paschke advised that it <br />130 <br />was staff’s hope to have a consistent process established for developers aware of the <br />131 <br />process they’re required to complete prior to any permit approvals. <br />132 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Bilotta advised that typically a Phase I <br />133 <br />Environmental Study was required by banks, and was basically a database search of <br />134 <br />various sources and aerial photos to make a determination about environmental <br />135 <br />conditions or anything that may have prompted any environmental issues, without <br />136 <br />probing the ground. Mr. Bilotta advised that the EAW was intended to review the plat. <br />137 <br />With the parcel serving as an old truck site, Member Murphy opined that he would <br />138 <br />suspect chemical contamination. <br />139 <br />Mr. Bilotta advised that Phase I would determine if a Phase II was required; and clarified <br />140 <br />that cities were not typically provided a copy; and if there were indications that a <br />141 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.