2008_0714_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A 235 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE May 7, 2008 236 ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION 237 238 C. Proiect File 001 4, 239 Considerati ©n ©t a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment ©t Roseville City Code, Secti ©n 1011 240 (Nonconforming Uses) to achieve consistency between the City's requirements and State 241 Statute pertaining to nonconforming uses. 242 ChaiIIr Bake+ �'i ani ope+ ne+ d the Pu�bl�iIc Hearing for Project File 0014. 243 Ciity Planner Th�ommas Paschke re�viie�we�d staff 11 s an�al rsiis of th�iis re�q�ule�st, and recent re�viisiion s made by 244 the State Legislature to Minnesota State Statulte�, Ch�apte�r 462.3,57, SuI bdiiviisiion 1.e (Nonconformities) 245 providing added prote�ctiion for prope�rty ownee�rs. Mr. Paschke adviise�d that pre�viiou�s state l�aw al�l�owe�d 246 a mom -conmfo iimg structure or use to conmtiimule�, bust iit could mot be e�xte�mde�d, e�xpamde�d, intensified, or 247 ch�an�ge�d u nll�e�ss to be conforming. Mr. Paschke n�ote�d that the l�aw had been amme�n�de�d to allow a 248 structure or use to be con�tnn�u�e�d, re�paire'd, re'place'd, immprove'd, and pote'n�tnal�l r e'xpande'd; and no 249 also al�l�owe'd for the re'con' strulction' of a de'stroye�d or dammage'd non-conforming structure provnde'd 250 ce�rtann procedural re�q�ulnre�rme�n�ts were rme�t. 251 Mr. Paschke re'vne'we'd the re�comrme�n�de�d changes to e�xnstinig Cnty Code, specific to Rose�vnl�l�e', bult 252 con�snste�n�t with State Statulte', as de'taile'd nn the proj I e�ct report. Mr. Paschke n�ote�d that Cnty Code Mad 253 been modified several years ago (n.e'., setback variances), with specific note ®t sh�ore�l�an�d 254 m�anagee�m�e�n�t appl�iicatiion s that diid not allow for e�xce�ptiion s, with staff re�com�m�e�n�diing APPROVAL of 255 the re q uIe st. 256 Diisculssiion iin�cl�uIde�d whether the appl�iicatiion was for on l�y residential prope�rtiie�s, or iin�cl�uIde�d bu siin�e�ss .1 .1 257 and commercial prope�rti�e�s; i�m�pacts to re�ce�n�tl�y-adopte�d Twi�n� Lake�s provi�si�on s; exiistiin an d 258 proposed language related to second storiie�s, type of home design, and h�e�ii gh�t re�striictiion�s al�re�ady 259 suIpported elsewhere nn Cnty Code; purpose ®t the proposed language revisions to dearly articulate 260 Cilty Code and briln ilt iln�to compliance with State Statute to avoid mmilscon ce'ptilonls; and pre'vilou�s 2 6 1 recormrmendatiion�s from the Lot Spl�iit Stuldy Group and th�eiir recormrmendatiion�s for the Ciity Council 11 s 2 62 con�siideratiion of h�e�ii gh�t restriictiion language iin Ciity Code. 263 Ch�aiir Bake�rman dossed the PuIbl�iic Hearing, with no one appeariin to speak. 2 64 MOTION 265 Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to RECOMMEND APPROVAL, of the 266 proposed amendments to Roseville City Code, Secti ©n 1011; based on the comments and 267 findings detailed in the project report dated May 7, 2008,; amended as follows: 268 0 Approval based on the presumption that language modifications apply only to residential 269 properties; 2 70 0 Approval based on the presumption that language modifications also apply to pre-1959 2 71 parcels 272 Ch�aiIr Bake�rman expressed concem iIn recormrmendiln approval of the proposed language 2 "7 3 armendrment prior to staff darificationn of several iIssu�es: whe+ the+ r specific to residential propertiles or 274 also to bulsin�ess and commercial prope'rtie's; and whether pre-1 959 residential parce'l�s were nn�cl�ulde'd. 275 After fulrth�er dnsculssn on�, Commissioner Doherty withdrew his motion, and staff was req�ulested to 276 provide additional nn�formmatn on as dnsculssed. 277 MOTION 278 Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to CONTINUE to the next Planning 279 Commission meeting consideration of the proposed amendments to Roseville City Code, 280 Section 1011, pending staff clarification as discussed and pertaining t© the following: 281 Staff clarification that proposed language modifications apply only to residential 282 properties; PR. OJO014—RCA-063008 (4).doc Page 7 of 8