2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 2 Text Amendment to Title 10 of Roseville City Code, establishing a Planned Unit 46 Development (PUD) process 47 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Project File 0017 at 6:38 p.m. 48 City Planner Thomas Paschke advised noted discussion of the PUD process when the 49 Commission met jointly with the City Council and Sambatek consultant Ben Gozola to 50 review the PUD process itself and initiate the ordinance update. Mr. Paschke briefly 51 noted the resulting discussion on ideas and overview for the planning document, 52 followed by the City Council’s review of a preliminary draft at their December 7, 2015 53 meeting, providing a further opportunity between then and now for staff and the 54 consultant to further refine the process. Mr. Paschke noted that Mr. Gozola was present 55 tonight with the latest update for consideration by the Commission, and to receive public 56 input. 57 Sambatek consultant Ben Gozola provided a review as detailed in the staff report dated 58 February 3, 2016, and attachments. Mr. Gozola noted several overarching issues 59 identified throughout the update process: 60 1) The city didn’t want any new PUD zoning districts, but preferred to move toward an 61 overlay district as presented tonight, with the intent to create a win-win for all and 62 providing adequate documentation to show trade-offs for all to clearly understand. 63 2) As part of that, consideration of how to deal with older PUD’s citywide now, and 64 push to make sure that process was open and transparent for the public, one of the 65 concerns expressed with the old PUD process and perception that there was a lack 66 of openness. Mr. Gozola noted that was a priority expressed to make sure the 67 process was open and public throughout, while allowing flexibility as one of the 68 important components moving forward. 69 Mr. Gozola referenced “Attachment B” as a highlighted copy of proposed City 70 Code, creating “Chapter 1023: Planned Unit Developments,” and intended for 71 tonight’s discussion. Mr. Gozola advised that the City Attorney had been involved in 72 helping draft language following the City Council’s last review, as noted, and specifically 73 addressing various issues. 74 Mr. Gozola summarized various subsections addressing specific requests made 75 previously by the City Council and/or Planning Commission, including flexibilities 76 (Section 1023.07); minimum and/or maximum parking standards by reduction of stalls or 77 lot configuration. 78 As part of the parking area of flexibility (Item D), Mr. Gozola suggested wording as noted 79 “… allowing flexibility for all districts throughout the City.” 80 In Section 1023.09 – PUD Review Procedures (pages 5 – 12 of Attachment B), Mr. 81 Gozola noted that section established a 5-step PUD review process refined by the City 82 Council and staff over the course of a project, and reviewed various steps in the 83 process, with various areas that staff may waive administratively, but alerting the City 84 Council and Commission of their rationale in doing so and available for future reference. 85 For instance, Mr. Gozola noted that the sketch plan process may be waived. 86 Mr. Gozola further noted that the second developer open house meeting was now 87 included by policy and to formally address to the public what resolution was provided by 88 the developer of any concerns or issues brought forward by the public during the first 89 th open house (Line 226 – 4 step). As noted on pages 12-13, Mr. Gozola noted that staff 90 would draft the first rendition of language for the first overlay district plan, with developer 91 costs covering city staff time to do so. 92 Commission Discussion/Deliberation 93 Member Murphy questioned the process or series of steps called out to convert pre- 94 existing PUD’s to the new overlay district (line 397). 95