My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2020_0518_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2020
>
2020_0518_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/7/2022 9:35:26 AM
Creation date
1/7/2022 9:34:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
5/18/2020
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
569
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />129 Public Comment <br />130 Plat applications of this size require the developer to hold an “open house meeting” to engage nearby <br />131 community members, answer their questions, and address their concerns. Because of the social- <br />132 distancing mandate, the applicants did not hold a conventional meeting, and instead they made <br />133 themselves available for people to engage with them in person, by email, and by phone over several <br />134 days. A summary of this engagement is a required component of this plat application, and it was <br />135 submitted to staff on April 3; staff emailed this summary to each community member who engaged in <br />136 the “open house” and provided an email address, and it is included with this RCA as Attachment E. <br />137 Based on the comments received, the themes include concerns over traffic, density, disruption of <br />138 wildlife, and desires to keep the space undeveloped. Staff would note the proposed development does <br />139 not meet the City Engineer’s threshold (i.e., 45 new dwelling units) for conducting a traffic study. <br />140 The duly noticed public hearing for the preliminary plat and subdivision variance applications was held <br />141 by the Planning Commission on May 6, 2020. Members of the public who participated in the public <br />142 hearing or who contacted staff afterward have spoken for and against the proposal, citing similar <br />143 concerns to those raised during the pre-application engagement. Draft minutes of the public hearing are <br />144 included as part of Attachment E; readers will find that pedestrian safety along County Road C2 was <br />145 raised as an additional point of focus at the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the <br />146 Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval both of the proposed preliminary plat <br />147 and of the requested subdivision variance for the length of the cul-de-sac street. <br />148 The Commission’s motion also included the direction to consider adding sidewalks or other pedestrian <br />149 safety improvements along County Road C2, installing fences for privacy or safety along the eastern <br />150 edge of the development, and mitigating the heightened impacts of construction noise on nearby <br />151 residents in this time when social distancing keeps people in their homes for much more of the day than <br />152 usual. The minutes reflect the developer’s willingness to continue communications with the adjacent <br />153 homeowners regarding their fence needs and interests. With respect to pedestrian improvements in <br />154 County Road C2, this area is identified for future pathway segments in Roseville’s Pathway Master <br />155 Plan, but City staff does not recommend requiring the developer to install these improvementsbecause <br />156 the proposed internal sidewalks meet the pedestrian needs of the proposed development. Moreover, the <br />157 improvements contemplated in the Pathway Master Plan to serve the broader public would be adjacent <br />158 to the public open space on the north side of County Road C2, and they are not budgeted to be installed <br />159 for several years. Should the developer opt to voluntarily include these during final design, staff will <br />160 ensure they are appropriate. Finally, mitigating the heightened impacts of construction noise, by <br />161 temporarily restricting the allowed hours of construction or other means, is a topic for the City Council <br />162 to consider at its discretion. <br />163 P OLICY O BJECTIVE <br />164 Facilitate residential development that is important to the success of the Twin Lakes redevelopment <br />165 area, as discussed in the comprehensive plan. <br />166 Encourage and support the development of market rate general occupancy rental housing targeted to <br />167 more affluent renters, pursuant to the prioities identified in the 2018 Comprehensive Housing Needs <br />168 Assessment. <br />169 B UDGET I MPLICATIONS <br />170 Refer to DRC comments in Attachment D. <br />7d RCA <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.