2009_0824_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A Extract of the Draft August 5, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Proiect File 0017 Finalization of the Request for Proposals (RFP) pertaining to the forthcoming update of Roseville's zoning ordinances Mr. Paschke provided a draft Request for Proposals (RFP) prepared to go before the City Council in the near future seeking consultants for the Zoning Update from qualified firms. Mr. Paschke sought comments from the Commission, noting that some language of the RFP was standard, and some indicated the preferences of the City as previously discussed. Commissioner Boerigter sought clarification on the actual goal of the City, whether for use-based or form- based zoning provisions (page 1, Introduction, 4th and 5th bullet points) to be integrated through all zoning districts, or applicable to specific areas depending on the most appropriate zoning district. Commissioner Boerigter expressed concern that the proposed language in the RFP appeared to tell the consultants that those two provisions needed to be included, when his recollection of the intent was that the City was open to either/or or a combination (hybrid) of the two, rather than dictating specifics on those two points, providing a directive versus an intended decision. Commissioner Boerigter opined that 99.9% of the things to be accomplished could be accomplished by use-based code, even though it may not be as neat or as fashionable, or may not sell as well as form-based zoning. Commissioner Boerigter further noted that, page 2, Section C(Code Development and Revision) didn't clearly identify involvement early on in the process by the Planning Commission and City Council, rather than simply a monthly report coming before the Planning Commission of work completed to-date by staff and the consultant. Commissioner Boerigter expressed his concern that, if interaction was not early and ongoing throughout the process, the consultant faced the possibility of proposing something that would not be supported by the Commission and/or City Council; and opined that there needed to be buy-in by all parties long before a final document was achieved, including the big picture as well as detailed minutiae. Mr. Paschke advised that design standards varied (i.e., exterior materials, turf establishment, solar panels), and that a number of nuances were not specifically addressed in current code. Mr. Paschke advised that the intent was to move from the guiding documents to a zoning code allowing performance without incorporating Euclidean actions; with staff recognizing the need for the RFP to frame up the scope of work for interaction, pending recommendations of the chosen firm as to the actual process to be used, and incorporating the Commission's comments from tonight's meeting. Commissioner Boerigter noted that on page 3, Section 5(Budget), the $35,000 budget seemed somewhat limited given the amount of work to be accomplished. Commissioner Gisselquist concurred that the estimated budget amount seemed unrealistic. Mr. Paschke noted that this was staff's estimate; however, this remained an unknown until the RFP was distributed and returned. Mr. Paschke advised that this budget was specified in the original Request for Qualifications that was distributed to consultants. Mr. Paschke noted that the fewer meetings the consultant needed to attend, the lower their cost, and the more funds available for designing the code or nuances with staff and other parties. Mr. Paschke noted that with modern technology, a lot could be accomplished via e-mail. Mr. Paschke indicated that part of the RFP included individual proposals for how they would interact with the public and create the document. Mr. Paschke opined that staff felt the budgeted amount of $35,000 was a fair price in addition to staff's input. Commissioner Boerigter noted that there was no mention of public involvement in the proposed RFP, while recognizing that such involvement increased costs. Commissioner Boerigter noted that substantial public input had been received to-date through the Imagine Roseville 2025 and Comprehensive Plan Update process; however, he wanted to know whether this RFP omission was intentional on staff's part. Chair poherty echoed Commissioner Boerigter's comments related to the public input objective and budget; and noted in Section C, that the way this was phrased, the process seemed inadequate if the City Council was not on board with the proposed code revisions from the initial phase.