2015-04-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

seeking input from nearby property owners. Type 2B subdivisions would allow the common wall 33 subdivisions and the minor subdivisions that result in the creation of up to three total parcelsor 34 ownership interests; Type 2B subdivisions are proposed to be reviewed at a Planning 35 Commission public hearing and acted upon by City Council, like most land use applications. 36 Staff had initially proposed an administrative hearing and action process for this kind of 37 subdivision application, but the Planning Commission’sinsightful comments and concerns about 38 the quality of the public record produced through an administrative process compared to the 39 record of public hearings and council actions. 40 Common Interest Community(CIC)platsare used to convert rented tenant spaces in commercial, 41 industrial, or residential buildings into owner-occupied units. Since CIC plats divide up the 42 ownership within buildings and don’t create new lots of land, they have typically been handled 43 by Ramsey County, but Planning Division staff has recently learned that Ramsey County now 44 prefers local governments to approve CIC plats before they are filed with the County Recorder. 45 At this point, CIC plats seem to fit into Type 2B subdivisions. 46 Finally,Type 3 subdivisions are basically the same as the current plat process which requires a 47 developer open house when more than three parcels are created, a public hearing before the 48 Planning Commission, and final actions by the City Council. 49 The plat procedures in the proposed subdivision code are shorter and contain less detail than the 50 existing code. Much of the content of the existing requirements relates more to things like 51 grading details, street design requirements, and itemizations of all the information that comprise 52 complete preliminary and final platapplications than it relates to the process of creating, 53 reviewing, and approving plats. But all of those details which may not belong in the subdivision 54 code are important and will not be lost. Requirements about road design, grading, and other 55 construction activities will be located in other parts of the City Code that more appropriately deal 56 with those issues, and the lists of information essential to applications will be incorporated into 57 the application forms themselves. 58 As previously discussed, there are two major advantages to this approach. First, the subdivision 59 code becomes easier to read and understand. And second, changes in construction regulations or 60 the type of information that is necessary for applications can be changed, as necessary, more 61 quickly and easily if the changes don’t require the same schedule of public hearings and 62 approvals as other amendments to the subdivision code. Planning Division staff is still working 63 with other departments toevaluate which other City Code section are best for relocating some of 64 the existing subdivision regulations and drafting new application materials to ensure that requests 65 for approvals contain all of the information needed for diligent review and responsible action. 66 Planning Division staff will provide updates to the Planning Commission as these changes 67 become more concrete. 68 Most of the subdivision standards are technical in nature and beyond the scope of this discussion. 69 But Planning Division staff wants to call attention to Section 1105.03D of the draft subdivision 70 code, which is a place-holder to prompt discussion about solar energy access easements. If 71 required, these easements would apply to newly created lots and would prohibit structures or 72 trees from occupying certain parts of a lot that would block sunlight from defined parts of 73 neighboring parcels during specified seasons and times of day. Roseville has been supportive of 74 solar energy production, but the community may not want to go so far as to protect solar access 75 on a property by restricting development on adjacent properties. Increasing solar access may also 76 be found to be at odds with preserving and planting trees, and Roseville is in the midst of 77 evaluating its tree preservation requirements. So rather than proposing to include or exclude solar 78 PROJ0001_RPCA_Rewrite_040115 Page 2 of 3