2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The variance remains an important tool in certain circumstances, but the existing code provisions 57 separate the decision-making responsibilities between the Variance Board, which is responsible 58 for deciding whether to approve a variance request (e.g., for a not-strictly-perpendicular side lot 59 line), and the City Council, which retains the authority to approve or deny the proposed 60 subdivision. Under this arrangement, a decision by the Variance Board to deny a subdivision 61 variance essentially decides that the subdivision cannot be approved, even though the Variance 62 Board lacks the authority to act on subdivision applications. 63 Flag Lots 64 Flag lots are not prohibited, per seright angles de facto 65 66 necessary to create a flag lot. Planning Division staff suggests that if flag lots are effectively 67 prohibited, the Subdivision Code should state more explicitly that flag lots are not permitted. 68 PC UBLIC OMMENT 69 The public hearing for the proposed zoning amendment was held by the Planning Commission 70 on May 4, 2016; draft minutes of the public hearing are included with this RCA as part of 71 Exhibit A. At the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has not received 72 additional communications from the public. 73 LCDD-M EVEL OF ITY ISCRETION IN ECISIONAKING 74 Action taken on a proposed zoning change is legislative in nature; the City has broad discretion 75 in making land use decisions based on advancing the health, safety, and general welfare of the 76 community. 77 PCR LANNING OMMISSION ECOMMENDATION 78 Pass an ordinance amending City Code Section 1103.06 (Lot Standards) to clarify the 79 , based on the findings 80 and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the content of this RCA, public input, and 81 City Council deliberation. 82 Pass a motion approving the proposed ordinance summary. 83 AA LTERNATIVE CTIONS 84 A)Pass a motion to table the item for future action. 85 approving City-initiated proposals such as this, deferring action into the future could have 86 adverse consequences for property owners or potential developers who may be following 87 this process and anticipating its conclusion. 88 B)By motion, deny the request. Denial should be supported by specific findings of fact 89 based on the review of the application, applicable City Code regulations, 90 . and the public record 91 Attachments: A: 5/4/2016 RPCA packet and Draft ordinance B: draft public hearing minutes Draft ordinance summary C: Prepared by: Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd 651-792-7073 bryan.lloyd@cityofroseville.com 10.a PROJ0001_RCA_20160523-Lot lines and sizes (3) Page 3 of 3