2011_0214_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1XIEQUEST FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEAL ACTION DATE: 02/14/2011 ITEMNO:Board of Ad]/,Appeals A Department Approval Cit Manag Approval Item Description*.*O'r Appeal from Woods Edge Homeowners Association and Old Highway 8 Neighborhood residents regarding property rejection of petition requesting a comprehensive plan amendment to the land use guidance for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8 (PF11-001). 1 1.0 BACKGROUND 2 1.1 On November 16, 20 10. a petition was submitted to the Community Development 3 Department requesting that the City Council "...amend the Roseville Comprehensive 4 Plan to recommend "medium density development with future Zoning to be of a density 5 no greater than R-6 for 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8". Upon receipt the Petition was 6 referred to the Community Development Department for review. As part of the review, 7 the Community Development Director asked the City Attorney to provide an opinion on 8 how the City should proceed with the petition. The City Attorney reviewed the petition 9 and gave the opining that the petition was a request for a Comprehensive Plan 10 Amendment and that the petitioners have no standing to make the request pursuant to the 11 Roseville City Code, Section 201.07 (see Attachment A). Based on the City Attorney's 12 opinion, the Community Development Director decided that the petitioner's do not have 13 standing to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and to deny the petition. On 14 December 8,2010, the Community Development Director forwarded Ms. Rita Mix, 15 petitioners' representative a memo from the City Attorney that stated that the petition 16 should be rejected on procedural grounds since neither state statutes nor city code 17 allowed for abutting property owners to initiate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 18 However, staff did include the petition as part of the case material for the December 13, 19 20 10 City Council meeting where adoption of a new zoning map was being considered. 20 1.2 On December 20, 20 10. the City Manager received an appeal to the administrative 21 decision to reject the petition (see Attachment B). The reasons stated for the appeal are as 22 follows: 23 a. The Petition was submitted to the Community Development Director on 24 November 16, 2010. It contains signatures of 50 of the 73 property owners (69%) 25 surrounding/abutting the parcels scheduled to be rezoned. 26 b. The City Attorney in a letter to the Director recommends that the Petition be 27 "declined" stating that only the Planning Commission or Council can initiate a 28 change in the Comprehensive Plan. However the Planning Commission did 29 initiate the very same change named in the Petition on October 6, 20 10. 30 C. The City Ordinance 10 16. 0 1 C that allows petitions by abutting property owners 31 in matters of zoning was intended to protect citizen stakeholder rights to influence PF I 1-001RCA02141 Ldoc Page 1 of 3