2011_0214_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RICKSONP ELLP ECKMAN & Via Electronic Mail and U.S. Mail Decemb�er 7, 20 10 Mr. Pat Trudgeon City of' Roseville 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 R.E: Old Highway 8 Petition OurFileNow: 1011-00196 Dear Mr. Trudge n: Attachment A Robert C., Bell - of caunsel I have reviewed the enclosed,, undated Petition from property owners surrounding 3253 and 3261 Old Highway 8. As I understand the situation to be, the subject properties are currently zoned R- 1. while the City's Comprehensive Plan declares the properties to be used for high density residential use, The petitioners seek to maintain the current or similar zoning designation by, way of amending the Comprehensive Plan to more closely conform with the R-1 designation. Specifically, the Petition requests that the City Council '`an end the Roseville Comprehensive Plan to recommend 'mediurn density development' with future Zoning to be of density no greater than R-6.11" Without entering into the merits of the proposed amendment, the Petition should be declined on procedural grounds. It is noteworthy that the petitioners, seek an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, not an. amendment to the City's zoning code. Under Minnesota Statutes 462,357, an amendment to a municipal zoning designation may be initiated upon petition of affected property owners as defi ned in the zoning ordinance." Rosevi.]Vs zoning ordinance 4 e defi aff nes such cted property owners as "50 % of' the property owners abutting" the subject property. (Roseville City Code section 1016,0I.C.) In the present matter, however, the petitioners seek an amendment to, the Comprehensive Nan. t.Jnder Minnesota Statutes section 462.355, such amendments must be initiated by the City's Planning Commission or the City Council itself. Roseville City Code does provide a mechanism through which an amendment to a Comprehensive Plan may be 'Initiated by a property owner. (Roseville City Code section 201.07.) This, process, however, is confined to an a request "by a property owner." It is my understanding that the City has consistently defined "property owner in this context as the owner off the subject property. Such definition wakes sense, as there is no provision for "abutting property owners" as contained in the City"s zoning amendment provisions. Yfad the drafters of section 201.017 contemplated initiation of a Comprehensive Plan