2016_0523_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

RCA Exhibit A directionally-linear. As to who decides, Mr. Lloyd noted that ultimately the City Council 54 had that role as the final body reviewing and approving or denying subdivision request. 55 Astowhatistooirregular,Mr.Lloydadmittedhesurehecouldspecifically 56 address that, and may have to rely on a lot as it related to other parcels like it in that 57 location or with a more objective review. 58 In such a situation, Chair Boguszewski asked what recourse an applicant would have if 59 they submitted an application and it was deemed by staff as too irregular, and how they 60 could appeal that decision. 61 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff can support or not support an application and make a 62 recommendation accordingly to the City Council. However, if that body determined 63 differently from recommendation, Mr. Lloyd opined that the appeal process would 64 be subject to court relief if not applicable for the City Council serving in their role as the 65 Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 66 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the application would not 67 end at the staff level, but the applicant could decide if they wanted to see the application 68 process through to the Planning Commission and City Council even without 69 support; or they could choose to withdraw their application and not spend time and 70 money to ultimately reach a potential similar point later on. 71 Member Daire opined that it struck him that there were fewer and fewer options for 72 development and subdivisions in Roseville; and if situations developed with enough 73 caveats or ways our for a property development rights to not be unduly limited, 74 as fewer opportunities are available, more qualifiers were needed to address that 75 possibility. Having been part of a planning staff once, Member Daire, expressed his 76 sympathetic recognition of desire to open the door to development but at the same 77 time have the ability to defend the rationale for that development. 78 Mr. Lloyd agreed that was valid on the point for rationale requirements and 79 adherence with them or variance requests; but noted the city need to facilitate an 80 infinite number of subdivisions unless proven acceptable with the intent of the code 81 as indicated by the Lot Split Study report supporting continued allowance of parcel 82 subdivisions as appropriate. Mr. Lloyd noted the numerous building permit applications 83 coming through the city for home additions to homes built in the without enough 84 space unless encroaching on setbacks, it prompted many variance requests in the past. 85 Rather than leaving such over-limiting requirements in place when the city consistently 86 approved those previous variance requests in the past, Mr. Lloyd opined it had prompted 87 the city to now be in this position when a parcel was large enough to accommodate a 88 subdivision. Mr. Lloyd also noted that the easier subdivisions had already been done, 89 leaving those more challenging to remain. Therefore, if the city continues to support 90 those subdivisions, Mr. Lloyd opined that it made sense to have regulations in place 91 rather than requiring an applicant to come forward with a variance request. 92 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 93 MOTION 94 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the 95 City Council APPROVAL of the proposed AMENDMENTS (Subdivisions) to 96 Roseville City Code, Section 1103.06, based on the comments and findings of the 97 staff report dated May 4, 2016. 98 Chair Boguszewski stated his agreement with this revised language and indexing it to 99 underlying zoning. However, Chair Boguszewski also agreed with Member 100 concerns in not having - terms, while at the same time he offered his 101 support for paragraphs one and two providing more factors for consideration of and not 102 limiting subdivisions, but outlining a process before seeking a variance. Chair 103 Boguszewski opined that within the philosophy of government, the human element 104 be completely removed; and spoke in support of the motion. 105 Member Murphy expressed his appreciation of the concerns expressed by Member Bull; 106 but spoke in support of the motion, based on lines 137-141 specifically. While it may take 107 Page 7 of 10