2020_0518_CCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

129 Public Comment 130 Plat applications of this size require the developer to hold an “open house meeting” to engage nearby 131 community members, answer their questions, and address their concerns. Because of the social- 132 distancing mandate, the applicants did not hold a conventional meeting, and instead they made 133 themselves available for people to engage with them in person, by email, and by phone over several 134 days. A summary of this engagement is a required component of this plat application, and it was 135 submitted to staff on April 3; staff emailed this summary to each community member who engaged in 136 the “open house” and provided an email address, and it is included with this RCA as Attachment E. 137 Based on the comments received, the themes include concerns over traffic, density, disruption of 138 wildlife, and desires to keep the space undeveloped. Staff would note the proposed development does 139 not meet the City Engineer’s threshold (i.e., 45 new dwelling units) for conducting a traffic study. 140 The duly noticed public hearing for the preliminary plat and subdivision variance applications was held 141 by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2020. Members of the public who participated in the public 142 hearing or who contacted staff afterward have spoken for and against the proposal, citing similar 143 concerns to those raised during the pre-application engagement. Draft minutes of the public hearing are 144 included as part of Attachment E; readers will find that pedestrian safety along County Road C2 was 145 raised as an additional point of focus at the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the 146 Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval both of the proposed preliminary plat 147 and of the requested subdivision variance for the length of the cul-de-sac street. 148 The Commission’s motion also included the direction to consider adding sidewalks or other pedestrian 149 safety improvements along County Road C2, installing fences for privacy or safety along the eastern 150 edge of the development, and mitigating the heightened impacts of construction noise on nearby 151 residents in this time when social distancing keeps people in their homes for much more of the day than 152 usual. The minutes reflect the developer’s willingness to continue communications with the adjacent 153 homeowners regarding their fence needs and interests. With respect to pedestrian improvements in 154 County Road C2, this area is identified for future pathway segments in Roseville’s Pathway Master 155 Plan, but City staff does not recommend requiring the developer to install these improvementsbecause 156 the proposed internal sidewalks meet the pedestrian needs of the proposed development. Moreover, the 157 improvements contemplated in the Pathway Master Plan to serve the broader public would be adjacent 158 to the public open space on the north side of County Road C2, and they are not budgeted to be installed 159 for several years. Should the developer opt to voluntarily include these during final design, staff will 160 ensure they are appropriate. Finally, mitigating the heightened impacts of construction noise, by 161 temporarily restricting the allowed hours of construction or other means, is a topic for the City Council 162 to consider at its discretion. 163 P OLICY O BJECTIVE 164 Facilitate residential development that is important to the success of the Twin Lakes redevelopment 165 area, as discussed in the comprehensive plan. 166 Encourage and support the development of market rate general occupancy rental housing targeted to 167 more affluent renters, pursuant to the prioities identified in the 2018 Comprehensive Housing Needs 168 Assessment. 169 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS 170 Refer to DRC comments in Attachment D. 7d RCA Page 5 of 7