2016-02-03_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Extract or the December 7, 2015, Roseville City Council Meeting Minutes a.Receive Update on Proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance 1 2 City Planner Thomas Paschke and Sambatec Consultant Ben Gozola were available to 3 receive feedback on the most recent update on the proposed PUD ordinance prior to moving 4 forward with a draft to the Planning Commission as modified and detailed in the RCA and 5 draft PUD regulations dated December 7, 2015. 6 Mr. Gozola reviewed the revisions since the original November draft and subsequent City 7 Council feedback to-date; with comments specifically addressed via Attachment C. Councilmember Willmus 8 9 Overall, Councilmember Willmus stated he found the draft to be on the right track. 10 PUD Qualifications (Section A, (5) - Page 3, line 64 11 Councilmember Willmus asked if there was a need to have all land area controlled under 12 single ownership, which he found an area of concern. 13 Specific to ownership and establishment of PUD’s for areas of a plan under single ownership 14 or control, Councilmember Willmus stated his concern, since there could be a partnership or 15 corporation situation, or multiple controlling parties. However it was decided, 16 Councilmember Willmus noted the need to be clear and consistent throughout the document, 17 noting a contradiction from page 3 to page 12 as currently written. 18 PUD Review Procedure (Section 9, pages 5 and 6) 19 Councilmember Willmus noted issues in the past with PUD’s and the design review 20 committee’s closed door approach, and suggested revised language beyond “…unless waived 21 by staff…”, allowing for decision-points in a more open, transparent process for the Planning 22 Commission and/or City Council through a public body to allow people to see what was 23 happening from the front end of a project. 24 Page 12, #7 25 Operating and maintenance of common areas, Councilmember Willmus opined that appeared 26 to address residential settings, and his preference was that this also easily apply to 27 commercial settings too. Councilmember Willmus also noted that no matter the ownership 28 of a property, it was important to define who would be the holder of the documents, whether 29 or not it was the city, but expressed his lack of interest in the city becoming an arbitrator for 30 snow plowing, etc. with preference that those things be recorded with the property title for 31 those parties involved in the PUD and outside the city’s role. Councilmember McGehee 32 33 Councilmember McGehee agreed she thought this was on the right track, but expressed some 34 confusion in line with those comments of Councilmember Willmus about sharing common 35 ownership by entities and how to interpret those entities or individual contracts. 36 Councilmember McGehee expressed her need to more clearly understand what is being 37 proposed; and if the goal was to avoid the city arbitrating how something worked in a variety 38 of scenarios, especially in commercial areas, she was in agreement with that. 39 As touched upon by Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember McGehee noted her concern 40 with the design review committee consisting of staff, opining that she would like to hear the