My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013_0520_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2013
>
2013_0520_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/6/2013 2:45:33 PM
Creation date
5/22/2013 11:15:05 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
345
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
5.0PA <br />ROPOSALNALYSIS <br />58 <br />5.1RMS: City Code §1104.04 (Platting Variations and <br />59 ECOMBINATIONINORUBDIVISION <br />Minor Subdivisions) establishes the recombination process as an alternative the plat <br />60 <br />process to simplify those subdivisions which seek “to divide one recorded lot or parcel in <br />61 <br />order to permit the adding of a parcel of land to an abutting lot...[in such a way that will] <br />62 <br />not cause any portion of the existing lots or parcels to be in violation of this regulation or <br />63 <br />the zoning code.” The current proposal meets these criteria as it will enlarge four of the <br />64 <br />residential parcels and reconfigure the fifth in a way that doesn’t create any <br />65 <br />nonconforming conditions. A diagram illustrating the proposed land swap is included <br />66 <br />with this report as Attachment D. <br />67 <br />5.2CLUPMC: City Code §201.07 (Comprehensive <br />68 OMPREHENSIVE ANDSELANAPHANGE <br />Plan Amendments) allows property owners to seek, and the Planning Commission to <br />69 <br />recommend, changes to the Comprehensive Plan; a recommendation by the Planning <br />70 <br />Commission to approve a change to the Comprehensive Plan must have the affirmative <br />71 <br />votes of at least 5/7ths of the Planning Commission’s total membership Given the <br />72 <br />minimal nature of the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan, the <br />73 <br />only real effect would apply to the land area contributed to Lake Josephine County Park. <br />74 <br />The sensitive wetland area identified in Ramsey County’s resolutions approving the land <br />75 <br />swap will likely have better long term protections under the POS land use designation <br />76 <br />than as residential land, which advances several of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and <br />77 <br />policies pertaining to environmental protection. Moreover, the land area contributed to <br />78 <br />the park is adjacent to an undeveloped portion of Chatsworth Street right-of-way, which <br />79 <br />could provide another point of public access to the trails within the park, thereby <br />80 <br />contributing to the achievement of the Comprehensive Plan’s goals and policies <br />81 <br />pertaining to parks, open space, and recreation. Finally, the proposed C <br />82 OMPREHENSIVE <br />LUP wouldn’t change the purpose and intent of the <br />83 ANDSELAN MAP CHANGE <br />Comprehensive Plan; instead, the proposal would result in a slight adjustment of the <br />84 <br />boundary between the land use categories involved. <br />85 <br />5.3ZMC: Assuming that the proposed property line adjustment and the <br />86 ONINGAPHANGE <br />change to the Comprehensive Plan are supported and approved, the requested <br />87 ZONING <br /> becomes a clerical step to ensure that the zoning map continues to be <br />88 MAP CHANGE <br />“consistent with the guidance and intent of the Comprehensive Plan” as required in City <br />89 <br />Code §1009.04 (Zoning Changes). <br />90 <br />6.0PC <br />UBLICOMMENT <br />91 <br />The duly-noticed public hearing for this application was held by the Planning <br />92 <br />Commission on May 1, 2013, after which the Planning Commission voted unanimously <br />93 <br />(i.e., 7 – 0) to recommend approval of the proposed changes. Planning Division staff has <br />94 <br />received a couple phone calls and emails with clarifying questions; once the issues were <br />95 <br />explained, these members of the public were supportive of the request. <br />96 <br />PF11-009_RCA_052013.doc <br />Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.