2016-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 6 speaking. Therefore, Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent of the revised language was not to 251 be brief, but address the actual reality of working with simple shapes, whether that meant 252 rectangles, squares, cones or pie shapes, with it being hard to characterize as 253 directionally-linear. As to who decides, Mr. Lloyd noted that ultimately the City Council 254 had that role as the final body reviewing and approving or denying subdivision request. 255 As to what is too irregular, Mr. Lloyd admitted he wasn’t sure he could specifically 256 address that, and may have to rely on a lot as it related to other parcels like it in that 257 location or with a more objective review. 258 In such a situation, Chair Boguszewski asked what recourse an applicant would have if 259 they submitted an application and it was deemed by staff as too irregular, and how they 260 could appeal that decision. 261 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff can support or not support an application and make a 262 recommendation accordingly to the City Council. However, if that body determined 263 differently from staff’s recommendation, Mr. Lloyd opined that the appeal process would 264 be subject to court relief if not applicable for the City Council serving in their role as the 265 Board of Adjustments and Appeals. 266 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the application would not 267 end at the staff level, but the applicant could decide if they wanted to see the application 268 process through to the Planning Commission and City Council even without staff’s 269 support; or they could choose to withdraw their application and not spend time and 270 money to ultimately reach a potential similar point later on. 271 Member Daire opined that it struck him that there were fewer and fewer options for 272 development and subdivisions in Roseville; and if situations developed with enough 273 caveats or ways our for a property owner’s development rights to not be unduly limited, 274 as fewer opportunities are available, more qualifiers were needed to address that 275 possibility. Having been part of a planning staff once, Member Daire, expressed his 276 sympathetic recognition of staff’s desire to open the door to development but at the same 277 time have the ability to defend the rationale for that development. 278 Mr. Lloyd agreed that was valid on the city’s point for rationale requirements and 279 adherence with them or variance requests; but noted the city didn’t need to facilitate an 280 infinite number of subdivisions unless proven acceptable with the intent of the city’s code 281 as indicated by the Lot Split Study report supporting continued allowance of parcel 282 subdivisions as appropriate. Mr. Lloyd noted the numerous building permit applications 283 coming through the city for home additions to homes built in the 1950’s without enough 284 space unless encroaching on setbacks, it prompted many variance requests in the past. 285 Rather than leaving such over-limiting requirements in place when the city consistently 286 approved those previous variance requests in the past, Mr. Lloyd opined it had prompted 287 the city to now be in this position when a parcel was large enough to accommodate a 288 subdivision. Mr. Lloyd also noted that the easier subdivisions had already been done, 289 leaving those more challenging to remain. Therefore, if the city continues to support 290 those subdivisions, Mr. Lloyd opined that it made sense to have regulations in place 291 rather than requiring an applicant to come forward with a variance request. 292 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 293 MOTION 294 Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the 295 City Council APPROVAL of the proposed AMENDMENTS (Subdivisions) to 296 Roseville City Code, Section 1103.06, based on the comments and findings of the 297 staff report dated May 4, 2016. 298 Chair Boguszewski stated his agreement with this revised language and indexing it to 299 underlying zoning. However, Chair Boguszewski also agreed with Member Bull’s 300 concerns in not having “wishy-washy” terms, while at the same time he offered his 301 support for paragraphs one and two providing more factors for consideration of and not 302 limiting subdivisions, but outlining a process before seeking a variance. Chair 303