Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpm_061004 Planning Commission Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Minutes - Wednesday, October 4, 2006 1. Call to Order Planning Commission Chair Mark Traynor called to order the meeting of the Planning Commission at 6:54 p.m. and welcomed those in attendance; reviewing the purpose of the meeting and the Public Hearing procedure. Chair Traynor introduced staff; and introduced and welcomed newly-appointed Planning Commissioner Ildephonse Gasongo; and administered the oath of office to Commissioner Gasongo. Commissioner Gasongo made a few brief comments; and expressed his enthusiasm and interest in being appointed to the Planning Commission in an effort to support his community. 2. Roll Call & Introductions City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. Members Present: Commissioners Ildephonse Gasongo; Dan Roe; Joe Wozniak; Mary Bakeman; Daniel Boerigter; and Chair Mark Traynor. Commissioners Excused: Commissioner Jim Doherty left the meeting to attend a Community Visioning sub-committee meeting being held at 7:00 p.m. Staff present: Community Development Director John Stark; City Planner Thomas Paschke; Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd; and Recording Secretary, Sheila Stowell. 3. Approval of Minutes MOTION Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Wozniak, to approve meeting minutes of September 6, 2006 as presented. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Abstentions: 3 – Doherty (left before vote); Roe (absent 9/6/06); and Gasongo (not appointed yet) Motion carried. 4. Public Comment – Communication and Recognitions Public No one from the public appeared to speak on any non-agenda items. Commissioners and Staff No comment. 5. Public Hearings a. PLANNING FILE 3692 Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update Chair Traynor continued the Public Hearing of the Process. Community Development Director John Stark distributed to the Planning Commission a Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 04, 2006 Page 2 status report of the Comprehensive Plan Update process, dated October 4, 2006; and provided a review of each section of the plan. Discussion included staff’s perspective and input for an aggressive approach for policy and/or technical updates needed and a timeline for accomplishing each respective update; realities of timing issues; relationship of and strategies for the technical updates with the “Imagine Roseville 2025” community visioning process and overall Plan update; and defined participation and expectations of the Planning Commission’s role. Sections discussed, status, and staff and/or Commission responsibilities included 1) Introduction/Background; 2) Demographics Profile; 3) Goals & Policies; 4) Land Use by Planning District; 5) Transportation; 6) Housing & Neighborhood Plans; 7) Economic and Redevelopment Plans; 8) Environmental Protection; 9) Parks; 10) Community Facilities; 11) Implementation Strategies; and 12) Appendices. Mr. Stark recommended consideration of whether including Master Plans into the Comprehensive Plan appendices was legally appropriate, or whether they should be stand- alone documents, allowing the Comprehensive Plan to be a more broad-based and general look into the future, requesting that the Planning Commission and City Council address the specific detail for appendices augmenting the Comprehensive Plan. Further discussion included metropolitan systems statements in conjunction with technical or policy updates; regional strategies of the Metropolitan Council; timing concerns; status of various departments and activities of advisory commissions in pursuing their particular areas of expertise and recommendations; technical updates and timing; staff’s preference for reviewing each section (i.e., technical updates) on a one/month basis as applicable at the Planning Commission level beginning immediately; staff’s intent to make recommendations to the Planning Commission on updates; Metropolitan Council requirements for a mandatory update in 2008; and visioning process completion by end-of-year (2006) and future incorporation of that data into a future amendment to the Comprehensive Plan due to timing concerns. Additional discussion included in-house staff time versus or relative to outside consultants and their respective expertise and resources; 2007 budget funds for the Comprehensive Plan Update; format of the Comprehensive Plan update allowing for structure and terminology consistency; statutory requirements and mandates; and the need for Commissions and the Department Heads to move forward with their portions of the Comprehensive Plan Update in an appropriate fashion. Staff recommended that Sections 4 (Land Use by Planning District) and 7 (Economic and Redevelopment Plans) be considered from scratch, rather than utilizing a “band aid” approach; and opined that staff didn’t have the time or expertise to address those two sections. Mr. Stark opined the need for outside assistance on at least those two sections, depending on City Council support of that recommendation; and encouraged the Planning Commission, individually or as a whole, to remind the City Council of funding requirements for the Update. After further discussion, it was Commission consensus to direct staff to prepare a draft resolution for their consideration at the next Planning Commission, recommending to the City Council the Commission’s encouragement for City Council provision of necessary 2007 funding to implement technical and policy updates for the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update, and to implement the Community Visioning process documents into the update. Commissioner Roe noted that the Council had adopted their preliminary budget and levy; and recommended that the Planning Commission seek allocation of funds for the purpose of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 04, 2006 Page 3 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update. Further discussion ensued regarding projected costs for the update, depending on how much in-house and/or outsourcing assistance was available, estimated by staff at $40,000 - $120,000. Mr. Stark noted that the proposed City Manager budget recommendation at 4.5% did not include funds for the Comprehensive Plan Update; and further noted that the 2007 budget and levy increase was preliminary adopted at 5%. It was Commission consensus that work proceed with manageable segments of the update at each monthly meeting, as recommended by staff. Chair Traynor thanked staff for the status report and section breakdown. MOTION: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Roe, to carry over discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Update Process to the next meeting. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 6. Information and Reports a. Rental Licensing Program Commissioner Roe, as the Planning Commission representative to the Rental Licensing Advisory Group, provided a brief update on the proposed Rental Licensing Program for the City of Roseville, noting that the group finished their review approximately one month ago, and that the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) would be hearing the presentation at the September meeting. Commissioner Roe encouraged public viewing and/or participation in the Public Hearing scheduled for the October 17, 2006 HRA meeting, prior to forwarding the recommendation to the City Council, or modification prior to recommendation. Commissioner Roe highlighted components of the proposed licensing program; proposals for creating additional strengths and streamlining for code enforcement in general through administration of fines for non-compliance; streamlining the process for bringing court citations to Ramsey County; and creating a venue to determine whether a problem existed with rental housing in single-family residential areas through identifying trends; and obtaining data on residential properties. Commissioner Roe noted that the Task Force’s recommendation was to not have a full-scale licensing at this time, but to implement a registration program with a nominal fee, to bring knowledge of rental properties to staff; and imparting information to owners of those properties related to their rights and responsibilities. Commissioner Roe further noted the implementation of educational information and the City’s work with area colleges and other entities (e.g., realtors) for obtaining additional documentation, perhaps at Roseville property closings and via the City’s website, and providing information to landlords for City requirements for one, two, three, and four-unit rental properties, not large apartment buildings. Chair Traynor thanked Commissioner Roe for his participation, and for tonight’s report. Variance Board Actions Commissioner and Variance Board Chair Bakeman brought to the Commission’s attention an issue regarding Public Hearing notice precipitated by recent Variance Board denials and appeals to the City Council. Commissioner Bakeman reviewed the current process for mailed and published notice for Public Hearings coming before the Board; and discussed concerns of neighbors expressed as to how they would receive notification when a request was appealed to the City Council. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 04, 2006 Page 4 Discussion included timing of the process related to existing code; timing of placement on the City Council docket within ten (10) days of the Variance Board meeting; language of notices; and options for neighbors to use in determining outcomes of Public Hearings. Mr. Paschke noted that, at the direction of the City Attorney, the process was given due diligence, and noted that some responsibility needed to fall on those concerned individuals to contact the City Office to determine the status of cases under consideration, given limited staff resources and time. Further discussion ensued regarding the process; testimony heard at the City Council level; and staff’s time in preparing the reports for the Boards and City Council meetings in addition to additional notice requirements, and lack of adequate time for mailing and/or publishing in accordance with current Code; the Public Hearing process at the Variance Board and/or Planning Commission meetings versus additional and informal public testimony at the City Council level, repetition and/or new comment; and whether to amend Code to delay Council hearing of appeals until a later City Council meeting and impacts to the permit process and construction concerns. Mr. Stark requested clarification as to staff direction from one of the following options: 1) Direct staff to send out notification of appeal before the City Council; 2) Change timing of the process, requiring an ordinance amendment; 3) Change the appeal to the City Council into a Public Hearing, requiring an ordinance amendment; or 4) At a minimum, staff’s recommendation not characterizing the appeal before the City Council as a Public Hearing, but rather a “public meeting at which the City Council may choose to accept additional testimony.” Additional discussion included current language on public notice; creation of an Appeal application and amendment to current Code language; additional administrative costs and staff time based on day-to-day operations and changing workload requirements; need for City Attorney comment and review of proposed modifications related to statutory land use impacts; actual evidence heard by the City Council on appeal and whether it is that of the written record of the Variance Board or if new evidence is to be considered, putting the Variance Board at a disadvantage; and a review of the current Code and recommended revisions having operated under its implementation. Mr. Paschke advised that staff could prepare a draft “Request for Council Action” (RCA) addressing the items identified by staff, the Variance Board, and Planning Commission, and any modifications consistent with tonight’s discussion, for presentation at next month’s meeting, prior to making recommendation to the City Council for their review. Staff was directed to prepare a draft RCA for review by the Variance Board and Planning Commission at their next meeting, prior to forwarding to the City Council for their consideration and discussion at a future City Council Study Session, to provide input on appeal process language and provisions, Public Hearing notice, and whether to allow an applicant to provide supplemental evidence and/or mitigating circumstances, applicable to Variance Board appeals. It was Commission consensus that, if the Ordinance were opened up for discussion and amendment, consideration be given to including language that no new materials could be presented by the applicant on appeal to the City Council, and that only the written record as presented to the Variance Board, be heard by the City Council. Chair Traynor requested that one or two members of the Variance Board arrange to attend that City Council Study Session. Variance Board Chair Bakeman duly noted Chair Traynor’s Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 04, 2006 Page 5 request. Imagine Roseville 2025 Community Visioning Process Chair Traynor reviewed the ongoing community visioning process; with the Steering Committee and Subcommittees beginning to initiate drafting of goals and strategies; moving toward a more concrete product that will assist the City Council, Steering Committee, and community to understand the process. Chair Traynor thanked the citizens on the Steering Committee for their dedication and involvement in moving the City forward into the future in a positive direction. Community Development Director John Stark Mr. Stark provided several training opportunities for the Commission’s information and possible attendance. Chair Traynor requested that staff provide additional information, prior to the next meeting, on Government Training Service (GTS) and/or League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) training opportunities for Commissioners. b. Staff Appreciation Chair Traynor commended staff on their preparation for, presentations and information provided at tonight’s meeting. Commissioners concurred. 7. Adjournment Chair Traynor adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.