CC_Minutes_2011_0214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,February 14, 2011 Page 14 Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon summarized the process referenced by Chair Roe and as detailed in the RCA dated February 14, 2011; along with the February 2, 2011 Planning Commission's unanimous recommendation to the City Council that the petitioners did not have standing pursuant to Roseville City Code, Section 201.07 and that the Community De- velopment Director made the proper decision not to proceed with the request made by the Woods Edge Homeowners Association and the Old Highway 8 Neighborhood residents in their petition. Councilmember Pust expressed confusion as to why citizens continued down this path when they had been told that they had no legal authority for this path to work for them. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that this step was a culmination of the process that had originally been started by the citizens. Mayor Roe noted that the citizens could have withdrawn their appeal at any time at their discre- tion. Councilmember McGehee opined that, when the citizen group had initially come forward in No- vember of 2010, they had been provided no distinction between the process for requesting rezon- ing and requesting an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan, which distinction had been brought up much later in the process. Councilmember McGehee provided her perspective on the intent of the citizens, opining that they hoped that the strength of their advocacy in the process would be heard. Councilmember McGehee reviewed her concerns with the process over the last ten years and land use and zoning designations of the subject properties; and further questioned rationale in requiring this distinction. Mr. Trudgeon clarified the citizen petition process and staffs awareness of the petition during the process, without the value of having been able to assist the citizens in the appropriate process to follow, providing better direction for all parties. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the legislative changes over the last several decades moving from zoning trumping comprehensive plans, and now comprehensive plans trumping zoning; creating the need for compliance of both documents in accordance with state law. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the subject properties had been zoned one way and the comprehensive plan had guided for HDR land use designation for decades, and had only been brought into consistency during the most recent Zoning Code Update completed in 2010. Mr. Trudgeon advised that the proscribed petition process served a value for residents to petition for change, and further advised that staff was sensitive to the issues currently before the Board; and noted that any rezoning application request and process may bring up new informa- tion that staff would forward to the City Council, along with recommendations as to whether a Comprehensive Plan Amendment should be initiated. Councilmember McGehee questioned the City Attorney letter addressing differences in Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan Amendments; and questioned the specific rationale to have two (2)parallel paths. City Attorney Bartholdi reviewed the justification for the distinctions and the parallel process specific to this issue, noting that Zoning Code changes did not need review and approval by the