2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 6 Mr. Gozola suggested this proposed language made more sense to an existing PUD 244 owner and provided a better understanding of their process. Mr. Gozola noted that the 245 open houses would still be a component of the final plat. 246 Specific to the requirements of graphic scale (line 238) as a land surveyor, 247 Member Gitzen asked that language be changed to “north arrow” rather than “true 248 north arrow;” with that request duly noted by Mr. Gozola. 249 Member Daire noted that this language appears to mandate two open houses: one 250 related to the sketch plan and one related to the concept plan for a PUD. When calling 251 for developer open houses, Member Daire noted that intent was to have the process be 252 as open and transparent as possible in describing what was going on, with notifications 253 sent out to properties within 500’ of the project two times. 254 While this is not currently done, Mr. Paschke clarified that it is being considered; with the 255 current process of staff providing an Excel spreadsheet to the developer from the City’s 256 database allowing the developer to draft a mailing list of labels to meet their requirement 257 to send out a specific notification, currently followed for any open house. 258 Since it would require no additional work for city staff, Member Daire contended that due 259 to the two separate steps, an open house for the plan review process be included. 260 Since the developer would already be receiving a mailing list for those deemed to be 261 within 500’ of their property, Member Daire opined that he considered it inconsequential 262 that the developer/owner be mandated to send a second notice to those same property 263 owners within that 500’ radii using the initial list they received, specifying in bold print 264 that this was a sketch plan and describing its intent, as well as the second review for the 265 concept plan and describing that intent. While the open houses may seem redundant, 266 Member Daire opined that it accomplishes the city’s purpose for transparency, and 267 describing all changes up to that point. Member Daire reiterated his preference that the 268 developer be mandated to mail both times to those within 500’, even while recognizing 269 that the City of Roseville goes beyond the state law requirement of a 350’ notice radius. 270 However, Member Daire further opined that he didn’t think this was asking too much of a 271 developer to make that effort. 272 At the request of Mr. Paschke, Member Daire clarified that his intent was to further 273 revise the language, referencing Section 1102.01.B for the open house process, to 274 require notification for the sketch plan and again for the concept plan. 275 Mr. Paschke noted that this was the intent of the proposed language, with the first open 276 house specific to the sketch plan and providing notice to properties within 500’ and to 277 repeat that process for the concept plan. Mr. Paschke noted that staff reviews the 278 content and information proposed by the developer for both mailings. 279 Member Daire sought clarification as to whether the developer/owner was required to 280 provide a summary of both meetings to staff. 281 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively, along with providing a summary to those attending 282 the meeting as well to ensure that summary is consistent with the recollection of those in 283 attendance and assuring them that their issues/concerns had been raised at the sketch 284 plan stage. Therefore, Mr. Paschke noted that it was his understanding that as the 285 proposal moved toward to the concept stage (e.g. hard documents) those issues were 286 documented and had been addressed. 287 Mr. Gozola referenced the written summary requirements as a mandatory part of the 288 application itself (line 231). 289 As confirmed by Mr. Paschke, Chair Boguszewski noted that the aforementioned and 290 ongoing work of the joint notification task force, if ultimately approved by the CEC, 291 Planning Commission and City Council, would apply to this as well. As an example, if 292 the notification area changed, Chair Boguszewski noted it would also apply to this 293 ordinance; with Mr. Paschke again confirming that supposition. 294