CCP 01302023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ATTACHMENT F Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2022 Page 7 Member McGehee asked if Ms. Trapp could explain a little bit on how HKGi decided on the twenty percent, and when they are doing this, she believed, all of the watershed districts who have holdings and a say in all parts of the City have a list of plants that are a part of the restoration of shoreland that they recommend. That list of plants and how that is done and often grants are available to homeowners to assist with the plant purchases. Ms. Trapp explained the intent is that the homeowners will be in consult with staff when looking at these things because she did not think residents would have any idea what type of plants would be suitable to plant. Relative to the twenty feet or twenty percent HKGi was trying to come up with an amount that was an improvement to a situation. They were trying to balance those needs and figure it out. Ms. Trapp continued with her presentation on the key changes to the Shoreland Ordinance. Member McGehee indicated she did not understand the really stark differences between the PUD process the City goes through and any other development process the City goes through. She explained there is a reason why the City does not have many PUDs. She continued that if someone reads through the reasons why the City has PUD in the Code, the aspirational part, it seems like what government would always want in Roseville for redevelopment. There is a long list: improved environment, improved use of the land, less impervious surface, and so on. All of these things are desired and desirable, but yet the City makes it ten times harder for a developer to even ask for a PUD. A fee has to be paid in the beginning and the applicant has to go through the entire thing twice. McGehee opined that she thought is missing in the whole review process, since she has been on the Planning Commission, is not having impervious surface computed and present for review yet the PUD process now includes a second reviewwith the color renderings of what a proposed project is going to look like and its impervious surface coverage. This is actually very nice and since Roseville is a fully developed suburb and talking about a large part of redevelopment and when she thinks of the group that was just speaking before this item and everything they asked for was visioning of that large lot of land, a PUD seems perfect. The other thing was the lack of how to be more specific. The City needs to clarify how these decisions are made, need to clarify what is going to be looked at to make these decisions. She asked if that clarification would appear when it comes back to the Commission because somebody is going to decide on the suitability of a piece of property for something but she wondered on what basis will they decide and what are the findings they should make public. She noted under 6.4.2 in the comment there is a very telling comment that states “to reduce confusion and ensure conflict between different codes created”. She thought that should be corrected to not ensure conflict. She indicated she was looking for some of that clarification and did not see it in her review of the information in the packet.