Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well, evening. And behalf of the commissioners and staff, I would like to welcome you to the 10/23/2025 City of Roseville Planning Commission meeting. Please put all electronic devices on silent at this time. Agendas are available on the back counter of the room. And if you plan to speak at tonight's meeting, complete a blue speaker card and return it to a staff member. As a reminder, Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live, replayed on Comcast fourteen, and available on the city's YouTube channel. I will now call the meeting to order. Lou Beyemeyer, please have a roll call.

Yes. Commissioner Hagler? Here. Commissioner Jensen? Here. Commissioner Mace is absent excused. Commissioner Pryor? Here. Commissioner Oenedad?

Here.

Vice chair Brashears is absent excused. And chair Hagen Dazs?

Here. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Good Joe's and commissioners. Lupi Nelson recording secretary. Good

evening evening chair chair Hagen Joseph and commissioners Greg Bitter, planning manager.

Good evening. Lauren Hawker, senior planner.

Good evening commissioners. Eric Singer, associate planner.

Thank you. The public comment is a time for anyone who would like to address the commission on any item not on tonight's agenda. When addressing the commission, please state your name for the record and limit your comments to three minutes. Is there anyone who would like to address the commission on any item not on tonight's agenda? Hearing none, I will close the public comment period.

Next we have the consent calendar which consists of routine items that may be approved under one motion as recommended in the staff reports. However, each item may be considered separately upon a request by the audience, planning commission or staff. Tonight's consent calendar consists of one item, Item five point one minutes from the 09/25/2025 planning commission meeting. Is there anyone on the Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve the consent calendar as listed?

I'll make a motion to approve. I second.

Thank you. Commissioner Pryor has made the motion and Commissioner Unidad has second the motion. Roll call please.

Commissioner Hagler? Yes. Commissioner Unidad? Yes. Commissioner Pryor? Yes. Commissioner Jensen? Yes. And Chair Hagen Dazs?

Yes. The motion is approved. Next on the agenda is the request and presentation portion. Before we begin, I want to review the meeting procedures. We will hear the staff presentation then I will take questions from the commission then I will open the public hearing and public comment, the public will have an opportunity to speak, then I will close public comment and public hearing and the commission may ask questions of staff.

Finally, the commission will consider this item and make a decision based on the information provided in the report from staff and the testimony presented during tonight's hearing. Item 6.1 is a request that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a resolution affirming the multi hazard mitigation plan dated December 2023 is adopted and incorporated by reference as part of the safety element of the City Of Roseville general plan for the record file number PL16Dash30336. Lauren, may we have your presentation, please?

Yes. I'd be happy to be in my presentation. This is a very brief item. I have one slide for you tonight. So as you stated in the recommendation, we can just move forward.

So you're not here I'm not we are not asking for you to amend either the multihazard mitigation general plan. This is the city's multi hazard mitigation plan was adopted and is dated December 2023, and the general plan safety element states that the multi hazard mitigation plan is incorporated by reference as it may be amended from time to time. But California disaster assistance act funding is contingent on this being the case and the office of emergency services has requested that we provide them a resolution affirming that the multi hazard mitigation plan is incorporated by reference and adopted as part of the safety element. So that is what we have for you tonight for your recommendation to counsel is to adopt the resolution affirming that the multi hazard mitigation plan is indeed adopted into the safety element. That concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions you may have at this time.

Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff at this time? I will now open the public hearing and the public comments period. Is there anyone from the public would like to come forward and address the commission on this item? Seeing none, I will now close the public comment period and public hearing. Commissioners, are there any questions? Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to recommend the city council adopt the resolution. That's for the request is the adoption of a resolution affirming the multi hazard mitigation plan dated December 23. Is adopted and incorporated by reference as part of the safety element of the City Of Roseville general plan.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Pryor has made the motion and commissioner Hengler has seconded the motion. Roll call please

commissioner Jensen yes commissioner. Commissioner Hagler

yes

commissioner Pryor

yes

and chair Haines

yes the motion is approved item 6.2 is a request that the planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve an ordinance amendment to title 19, the zoning ordinance of the Roosevelt Municipal Code to clarify the city's definition for kitchens. For the record, it is file number PL25Dash0452. Eric, may we have your presentation, please?

Yes. Thank you, chair Hagen Dazs. So unfortunately, my items are gonna be slightly more in-depth than Lauren's, but we do feel they are very important. So the first one obviously is the zoning ordinance update for definitions of kitchens. So why are we doing this?

Well, currently, the zoning ordinance defines a housing unit by the presence of having one kitchen. Historically, we've allowed second kitchens in different forms, kind of treating them more like guest quarters, but not necessarily always counting them as a second dwelling unit or a second housing unit on the property. In recent years due to just an increase in the number of housing units that have been proposed on individual lots, a lot of these are due to changes in state law. You're seeing a lot of applications for ADUs, JADUs, accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, as well as laws like SB nine that allow two homes per lot I write on many of these single family zone properties. It's becoming more important than ever to clearly define what constitutes a housing unit and importantly, what kind of housing unit it actually is.

So now that properties are allowed to up to three housing units, and, you know, in many cases, a home, an ADU, and a JADU altogether, we wanna make sure we're accurately counting all of the units that are on these properties and ensuring that they're not getting overbuilt. We have seen some proposals for home additions that you can tell are pretty clearly intended to be used as a second dwelling unit, but not labeled as such. And so it's something that we're having to constantly flag as it comes through the permit center. What we're proposing as a fix for this is a new objective definition for kitchens, efficiency kitchens, and wet bars. And that's so we can clearly define what's constituting constituting a a housing unit and what's not, and then again, what type of housing unit would it be based on that that kitchen.

There are many other jurisdictions in the region that have already undertaken several, you know, similar efforts, so we're kind of falling in line with what they've been doing. So the proposed definitions for kitchen would basically involve having permanent provisions for cooking. So that is, you know, a two twenty volt receptacle for a stove or an oven or a dedicated gas line. That also does require minimum dimensions for things like a kitchen sink, food preparation, countertop areas. When you're moving down the rung to efficiency kitchens, that requirement for the the permanent provisions for cooking, so that two twenty volt or that dedicated gas line, it doesn't have to have that.

It can, but it doesn't have to. It does have to have some type of a cooking appliance and it does have to have those again minimum def excuse me, dimensions for the food preparation area, the sink, etcetera. Now, primary units and ADUs are required to have full kitchens. A junior accessory dwelling unit is only required to have an efficiency kitchen. And these are all terms that have been, you know, passed as part of state law.

So none of this is necessarily new terminology that we're introducing. It's all just based on existing nomenclature. Where we're drawing the cutoff between ADUs, JADUs, and housing units, and then what would just be considered an amenity is a wet bar. A wet bar is not allowed to have any cooking appliances in it, and it does have maximum dimensions dimensions for those aforementioned criteria like the food prep area, the the appliances, and the sink. So again, just to reiterate, as permits will come in, we can use these definitions between planning, between building, to have a very clear and accurate way of defining what it is that's being proposed.

Is it a housing unit? Is it just an addition to the home, etcetera? And again, only one kitchen per housing unit is allowed per our zoning ordinance. In terms of public outreach and environmental review, we did present these proposed amendments at the September 18, ARCONA Board meeting as well as to the North State Building Industry Association. Arcona board members did not really have any substantive comments.

The BIA had a minor technical comment that staff addressed and incorporated. Since the posting of the public hearing notice to the Arcona website and to the Press Tribune, we've not received any additional comments or questions. And the project is exempt from CEQA due to being a policy and procedure making activity per section 15 o six one b three. So lastly, staff recommends that the planning commission recommend the city council adopt the two findings of fact and approve the zoning ordinance amendments. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Commissioners, are there any questions for staff at this time?

I have a very minor question regarding the kitchens and the provision of the stove for the full kitchen. For the electric stove, it must be a two twenty volt. I know there are newer stovetops that are induction that work just as efficiently on one ten.

So we are basing it off of the fact that currently, believe building code as well as what the state law entails says that a full kitchen requires that two twenty or that dedicated gas line. It's the gray area of where all of this falls, and that's why it was important to incorporate additionally the dimensions for the food preparation area, the appliance size, the sink size, things of that nature. So that we can basically say, okay, well, you've triggered at least one of these requirements that tips the scale from wet bar into a type of kitchen. We can flag the rest of it, you know, deficiency kitchen versus regular kitchen, but at least we know that it's a housing unit versus just a simple addition to the home with an amenity like a wet bar. So that that's kind of where we have a secondary backstop essentially.

Yeah. And I think the key is that at a one ten volt, you that limits you in terms of what stoves or other cooking appliance options you have, and we're thinking about building this home so that it can have a full kitchen with any range of kitchen appliances. And that's sort of the cutoff between an efficiency kitchen, which is limited in terms of what kind of cooking appliance you'd be able to have.

Makes sense. Yeah. Thank you.

I just have one quick question just for my own education. So on a wet bar, it looks like you've got it set

up so that they can

make drinks and those kind things there, but it has outlets. So it doesn't approve preclude them from having a hot plate and a microwave on there as well. Although it really limits what they can cook, but they can still do that with a wet bar.

It is it is one of those things that, unfortunately, you can't catch at a plan check. You know, it's they're showing that they have one ten volt outlets. Well, those are all throughout the house.

Could have a blender.

Could have a blender. Right? But we felt again that having that the backstop of the dimension requirement is

I think it's Isn't that helpful? Yeah.

Yeah.

I was understanding.

What that means. Could as long as it's not causing any problems, plug in a hot plate and do whatever. It but if we found out somebody was living there and it was reported to us, then we have a rule that says you can't have cooking appliances.

It's something to force them.

You've created limitations as

Right. To what they they can can actually actually do. Do. They can They can cook cook a a turkey turkey on on a a hot hot plate. Right.

So so those things are kind of built into the organization.

The practical application of it. Correct. Yeah. Any

other questions? I will now open the public hearing and the public comment period. Is there anyone from the public who would like to come forward and address the commission on the side? Seeing none, I will now close the public comment period and public hearing. Commissioners, are there any additional questions?

And the JEU and clearly not in wet bar. But when we're going to the state, we're saying how many units we're providing. Do we get what are the credits for the 8.6 or

For you get it's for the unit. It depends on the affordability. So there's no, like, point six or point it's one. One unit is one unit. So for ADUs, we were allowed to count a certain percentage of the expected over the planning period would could be counted as affordable. And our number was a little low because we weren't necessarily counting all these things that are actually ADUs.

So this is a good thing for the city to make sure we're taking full credit for everything that

we do. Correct.

Is

there a second?

I second.

Thank you. Commissioner Jensen has made the motion and Commissioner Union has seconded the motion.

Mr. Hegler? Yes. Commissioner Pryor? Yes. Commissioner Jensen?

Yes.

Commissioner Unidad?

Yes.

Chair Hagenges?

Yes. The motion is approved. The item 6.3 is a request that the Planning Commission recommend the the city council consider and adopt a resolution approving the infill objective design standards for the record file number PL25Dash0450. Eric, may we have your

presentation? Yes.

So again, fairly meaty topic. So buckle up. A little background on why we're interested in implementing objective design standards for the infill portions of the city. So next slide, please. The city currently has our community design guidelines or our CDGs.

There there are robust set of guidelines that apply citywide, specific plans as well in most areas of the city would supplement those CDGs with additional objective design standards anytime we get a development application in, use the combination of all of those standards and guidelines together to facilitate good development. Older parts of the city that aren't subject to a specific plan, what we call the infill areas, they don't have the additional objective design standards that are found within all of our specific plans. In addition to that, there have been many recent state laws for many different types of housing products that no longer projects, I should say, that no longer require discretionary review. So only objective design standards and not subjective guidelines may be applied in reviewing those types of projects. Staff's increasingly seen more and more infill residential development proposals that unfortunately are inconsistent with RCDGs, but because they're subjective guidelines, in some cases, they couldn't be applied to maybe craft a better project.

For example, we've seen development proposals that have included things like multiple driveways with limited landscaping that would consume most of property's frontage. Poor pedestrian design, it has a negative impact on the streetscape, but it doesn't preclude applicants from proposing it necessarily. What we're proposing is a set of objective design standards for residential development based on the CDGs largely that would address the gap between subjective guidelines that in some cases cannot be applied and having a hard backstop essentially of standards that would have to be met in order to approve a project at the staff level. We're proposing them mainly to ensure that any new residential infill development that comes in, it's livable for both our current residents as well as accommodating for future growth for future residents. So looking at what parts of the city this would apply to, it's primarily the city's core infill area.

It does apply to our three corridor specific plan areas as well. Now we are aware that the corridor plans have their own version of ODS essentially. There may be a few duplicative standards, and so planning staff is going to be bringing a cleanup amendment early next year to reconcile some of those difference through specific plan amendments. The ODS would apply to multifamily, small lot or medium density residential projects in these areas. Exhibits A and B of the staff report have kind of all the specific details and what those criteria that would have to be met for the housing product or projects.

So the standards themselves would address things like site planning, architectural design, colors and materials, edge and boundary treatments, vehicular access, lighting, landscaping, and so on. Again, these are all included in exhibits a and b of the staff report. For the purposes of this discussion, I just wanted to include a couple examples that can help kind of illuminate what we're trying to go for here. So the first standard presents or excuse me, prevents individual driveways in a multi unit development. So it's intended to address the issue that I described earlier where the frontage was mostly driveway leading to garages that were relatively close to the street.

This would consolidate it all to a single point of access as we start to see more projects that have multiple units that are proposed on relatively smaller sites in older single family neighborhoods. The second standard requires that if a wall is, two thirds of the property length or more, it has to have some type of variation in the wall plane. So it's basically to prevent one long unbroken flat wall all along a property line, which unfortunately is also an example of something that staff has seen recently. We wanna make sure that you're not having a negative impact on your neighbor's view sheds. Most of the time, staff is able to work with applicants to ensure that projects meet our CDGs currently, but we do wanna be proactive.

We wanna make sure that we're ahead of these types of proposals that are coming in. We're starting to see them more frequently. Our ability to regulate them with the CDGs is decreasing, you know, year after year with every new state law that's passed. And so this is, again, hopefully, an effective backstop against poor design and poor development. So again, in terms of public outreach, we met with OCONNOR board members on that September 18 meeting and discussed these proposed ODS.

They did not have any outstanding questions. We also presented them to the North State Building Industry Association. They did not have questions or take an opposed position. We additionally haven't received any additional comments or questions from members of the public since posting notice of public hearing on ARCOM's website or in the press review. And again, it's a policy and procedure making activity, so it is exempt from CEQA per section 15 o six one b three.

So again, planning our recommended action is that the planning commission recommended the city council to consider and adopt a resolution that would approve the infill objective design standards and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Commissioners, are there questions for staff at this time?

I have a quick clarifying question. So it's intended to apply to the infill areas which basically are outside of specific plan areas. Do we have any specific plan areas where their development agreements have expired and then they would be subject to this infill? Or or how does that work?

We do have areas where their development agreements are expired, but they would not be subject to these design standards. Because the design the specific plan design standards still apply even if development agreements have expired.

So the design standards and specific planaries don't expire. They stay Correct. Okay. That's what I need to know. Correct. Yep.

I just have a question about about notice. Normally, I'm used to seeing when a project comes in that there's been mailing to 300 within three hundred feet of the project. Is that not something that's required for the people who are in the infill here? You know, potentially, they're I'm just trying to think about people who might be interested in this.

So this this this this particular this particular zoning ordinance amendment doesn't doesn't apply to any specific parcel. I mean, it applies to everybody in general Right. But there isn't a there isn't a project that it applies to specifically that you would you would put a 300 foot notice on. So in those cases where there's more citywide or or these larger areas of the city, it's really the newspaper notice that covers our public noticing.

But that's also why for things like this, we actually go to the Arcona board Yeah. So they can dissent ask us any questions they have and disseminate information. Yeah.

Disseminate the information to

the neighborhoods.

Any other questions?

I will now open the public hearing and the public comment period. Is there anyone from the public who would like to come forward and address the commission on this item? Seeing none, I will now close the public comment period in the public hearing. Are there any additional questions? Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion. I think this is a very important motion to be made and something I strongly stand behind. I recommend that they or we recommend that the motion is we recommend the city council consider and adopt a resolution approving the infill objective design standards. That's for item 6.3, and file number PL25Dash0450.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Pryor has made the motion, and commissioner Hagler has seconded the motion. Call please.

Commissioner Linadan?

Yes.

Commissioner Jensen? Yes. Commissioner Pryor?

Yes.

Commissioner Hagler? Yes. And Chair Henges?

Yes. Motion is approved. Next on the agenda is the commissioner staff report. Are there any reports from staff? Yes.

Gonna make my comments from the podium this evening chair. First couple house housekeeping items. I just wanna report to you that we will not have a meeting in November, but we will have a meeting on December 11. Right now, looks like there might be one or two items for December 11. I also wanna report out that the city council on October 1 did vote to approve the ordinance that you all recommended regarding tolling the expiration dates on projects that are subject to lawsuits.

So I believe the second reading was last week and that effective date will be in around the fourteenth of of November. So now I wanna I think everybody knows that it's commissioner Jensen's last meeting tonight. Is it really? Yes. Oh, okay. Just checking. But but we wanted we wanted to to to thank Rob, commissioner Jensen, for all his service. And I think it's important for everybody to know that it's not just the last seven years on the on the planning commission that Rob has served the city of Roseville. He's been he's he worked for the city of Roseville from 1990 until 2018 when he retired from the city. So twenty eight years as a city employee.

You know, he worked in the public works department for, what, twenty one years doing doing everything, every different position you could be, including director for many years. He was an assistant city manager. He was our city manager for several years at the end of his his career here. And then immediately, he had his arm twisted and he was appointed to the planning commission, we're very thankful for because he's been, you know, just a wonderful commissioner, chairman, you know, staff. We work with you all a lot.

I work with the chairman, you know, probably more every year, the chairman, I spend more time on different items. And so it's always great to have somebody that can that, you know, supports staff that you can talk to about different administrative issues going on with the with the the commission. But it's I think it's on your last night of service to the city of Roseville to point out that thirty five years serving the city of Roseville, when he started with the city, the city population was 44,000 people. So it's it's, you know, quadrupled. And you've been through everything on it.

I I snagged I went up to the clerk's office and snagged the little resolution that they put together for his retirement seven years ago and it's just, you know, there's things on there that I that I know of and there's things on there that I didn't know of. And it's just it's really impressive. But I think one of the cool things is and I don't know what year it is, so you'll have to tell tell us. But Rob was named the Public Works Director of the Year by the American City and County Magazine for

all

of his efforts obtaining Roseville's National FEMA Class one status for flood control. So all the work that was done because of all the flooding issues, you know, this this I'm sure city county journal for the whole nation, you know, picked Rob to be the public works director of the year, which, you know, that's that's pretty cool. I mean, I mean, you yeah. You're gonna shrug your shoulders, but that's that's pretty pretty impressive. Brian and Yeah.

Greg wasn't here but the

Yeah. Flight control

people Yeah.

Helped me out quite a bit.

Yeah. That's still it's it's impressive. The the just all of the different the the amount of growth that Roseville's had in the last thirty five years is is impressive for a city of our size. And Rob was there through through everything. So I just wanted to recognize him and and thank him quite frankly because, you know, I mean, the city wouldn't be what it is without a lot of a lot of the work you did all those years.

So and I can't can't thank you enough. You've been a great I think I've heard from other planning commissioners. You've been a great mentor, a great model on the planning commission. You're really, really good at asking us leading questions that helps us answer questions for the general public to make sure that, you know, that some of the technical issues that that just are not really easy for for the common person to understand. You'll ask a question and lead us into answering a question to make it more, you know, a more common plain language for people to understand. So I do have something for you. I've got a little pizza here. Sorry. Sorry. Didn't lose your hand.

I did your your golden gavel since you served on the planning commission. It says Rob Jensen, in appreciation for serving on the planning commission, August 2018 through October 2025. Thank you for your service to the citizens of Roseville.

Thank you.

And now it'll take about fifteen minutes for me to read this resolution, so no. I'm not gonna do that. No. I know you'd kill me if I did that. I probably would.

Well, this is kind of unexpected, but I just want You completed

a blue speaker card. No.

No. Haven't, but I'm not a Roseville resident as of two weeks from now. So it's just been an honor to serve the city. It has been thirty five years.

Yeah.

It's more than half my life that I've served the city of Roseville, and I have taken that seriously every single day. I appreciate everyone in this room. I respect everyone in this room, especially the city employees. They're by far the best staff in the region and probably the state and probably across the country. There's a lot of talk about how government employees, you know, come in and punch their time clock and do what they need to do.

That's not the case here in Roseville. Every single one of these employees care about the community they live in. Every one of these commissioners, I have so much respect for you and your time you spend in preparing for meetings and making sure you understand what the issues are and asking the same questions that I ask to make sure they understand and the community understands why we do what we do and empathizing with them when we make a decision maybe they're not happy with. But we do that with what we think is in the best interest of the city. And after thirty five years, I have mixed feelings.

I I love Roseville. If I was gonna stay in California, there was no place I'd rather be than Roseville. But it's time for a change. It's time for my wife and I to go and enjoy the time we've got left. And for those that are listening, we're moving to Florida. And it's gonna be an adventure. We say we're moving to Jurassic Park because there's so many things that we don't know. But I just wanna thank staff, and I wanna thank the commission, and I wanna thank council if they're listening. This community is headed in the right direction. The things steps we've taken tonight.

You're exactly right, commissioner Pryor. This was an important ordinance that we considered tonight. And a lot of people may not recognize that, but it'll play out in the future. And we spend our time doing what's important. So I wanna thank you. I don't wanna take up too much time, but this means a lot to me. It means a whole lot to me. I really appreciate all of you. So thank you.

Thank you. So thank you. Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments from the commission? Otherwise, may I

have a motion to adjourn?

I think that gets me.

Yeah. Motion to adjourn. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Commissioner Jensen has made the motion. This commissioner prior to second is the motion. All those in favor?

Aye. They are adjourned.

Right.