2014-11-05_PC_Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 5 Original motion as amended 196 Ayes: 5 197 Nays: 0 198 Motion carried. 199 c.Project File 0017-Amendment 22 200 Request by the Community Development Department to amend certain 201 requirements contained in Roseville Zoning Code, Section 1009.07 (Developer 202 Open House Meetings) tobe consistent with similar requirements contained within 203 Title 11, Subdivision Code 204 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing at 7:15p.m. 205 Based on City Council direction, City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the proposed 206 amendments as detailed in lines41–62 of the staff report dated October 8, 2014, in an 207 effort to provide consistency and for an additional requirement for a developer to provide 208 a written summary of the open house and a list of those attending, as detailed in lines 55 209 –60 of the staff report. 210 Mr. Paschke summarized the comments received by staff from Member Stellmach earlier 211 today; and his question as to whether current language in only “encouraging” the 212 developer to provide a list of names/addresses of attendees was too loose versus 213 “requiring” that a summary be sent out.Mr. Paschke advised that he had responded to 214 Member Stellmach that it was implied that a sheet was put out at the open house and 215 attendees could sign in and be included in that list as well as what was copied to the City 216 with a meeting summary, along with a request from those attending receive a copy of the 217 summary in case their perception of what transpired or the information contained in the 218 summary was not interpreted the same.Mr. Paschke advised that this would then allow 219 those attending to provide the City Council with their own summary in addition to that 220 provided by the developer.Mr. Paschke opined that he didn’t find a conflict with the 221 current zoning ordinance and language as proposed. 222 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that the proposed text 223 amendments in Items B, C, and E were mimicking other areas of code specific to 224 developer open houses; and confirmed that if the Planning Commission preferred to 225 change the “encouraged” phraseology,it would need to be changed in other areas of City 226 Code to bring everything into compliance and consistency. 227 Member Boguszewski agreed that if the new phrase about mailing a copy, it lent heat to 228 the “encouragement” part; however, since the new phraseology didn’t occur in other code 229 language as adopted to-date, it may imply an intent if adopted that it be added to other 230 areas of code upon future text amendments. 231 Mr. Lloyd noted, as referenced with the new Subdivision Code, consistent language 232 would be written into that revision versus a separate text amendment. 233 Member Boguszewski expressed his concern that if text amendments to the new 234 Subdivision code included this new phrase (E. Summary), “encouraging” a list of 235 attendees be kept and submitted with the open house summary, and agreed with 236 Member Stellmach that language would be looser than intended. 237 Mr. Paschke reviewed his recollection of City Council discussions where they indicated 238 they did not want to require a sign in sheet; and if you attended an openhouse, everyone 239 and anyone had the ability to send the City your review encapsulating the meeting, but 240 the developer would be required to provide a summary as part of their open house 241 requirements, with the City Council then able to discuss the merits of what actually 242 occurred at the open house.From his perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that the 243 “encourage” language would not eliminate or require a sign-up sheet, as he interpreted 244 the intent of the City Council discussion to avoid requiring a list of attendees to retain the 245 anonymity of those attending and separating that community or neighborhood event from 246