2016-07-13_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Page 4 Council APPROVAL of the proposed AMENDMENT to Roseville City Code, Section 143 1011.04.J.8, based on the comments and findings of the staff report dated June 1, 144 2016; amended as follows: 145 Lines 47 – 49 language revised as follows: “When such a determination is 146 made, the applicant shall comply \[in one of the following three ways\] in the 147 following manner:” 148 Line 55, DO NOT strike “or” 149 Add language in Item a (line 51), as follows: “…private property, \[with the 150 consent of affected private property owner(s),..” (Daire); 151 Add language in Item a (line 51) as follows: “… private property, \[directly 152 adjacent\] \[within 400’\] to the subject development site,…” (Bull) 153 Further discussion ensued with Ms. Collins clarifying language in paragraph J related to 154 replacement requirements “in one or two ways or in any other combination to that effect.” 155 Member Gitzen suggested using the same language as indicated in item c. 156 Member Bull stated his preference for moving it up versus how suggested by Ms. Collins. 157 Ms. Collins advised that her only concern was that the city remain the final authority to 158 approve replacement in accordance with item b, and payment consistent with that item as 159 well to fulfill this requirement and the introductory line such as items a and b are defined. 160 Member Bull opined that if item c was left as it, it wouldn’t be one of the three options. 161 Member Kimble noted that item c was a combination of the two. 162 Member Gitzen suggested language such as “… in one of the following options…” 163 Ayes: 6 164 Nays: 0 165 Motion carried 166 6. Other Business 167 a. PROJECT FILE 0037, 2040 Comprehensive Plan: Discussion of the scope of the 168 upcoming comprehensive plan update; the draft Request for Qualifications and 169 draft Request for Proposals to be used for selecting a consultant for the update; 170 and the overall timeline of the process to update the comprehensive plan 171 Senior Planner Bryan Lloydreviewed the request as detailed in the staff report dated 172 June 1, 2016. Chair Boguszewski provided written comment for the record, attached 173 hereto and made a part hereof, with his questions and comments related to the 174 comprehensive plan update discussion; as a way to facilitate discussion, Mr. Lloyd 175 suggested using these comments and questions in addition to the staff report and 176 direction to prompt discussion and defining next steps based on tonight’s discussion. 177 Mr. Lloyd also referenced an additional bench handout recommended by Member 178 Kimble, and an excerpt of the principles from the “Thrive MSP 2040” document, attached 179 hereto and made a part hereof. 180 Mr. Lloyd reviewed and clarified the distinctions and purposes of the Request for 181 Qualifications (RFQ) and Request for Proposals (RFP) processes in seeking and 182 selecting a consultant to assist in the comprehensive plan update. Mr. Lloyd noted that 183 proposed revisions had been provided as a starting point based on the last RFP used for 184 this same purpose in 2007 for the 2008 update. Mr. Lloyd noted this involved the scale 185 for this update, whether intended as an update or a complete redo of the document. Mr. 186 Lloyd noted that this defined the scope of the RFP and cost for the consultant’s work and 187 a timeframe including public feedback throughout the process. 188 Mr. Lloyd noted that the next step will be for the City Council to receive this Planning 189 Commission feedback, as well as input in the near future from the Community 190