2012-10-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 03, 2012 Page 7 consultant in their feedback as the plan was being developed; and encouraged the 298 Planning Commission to provide their perspective as well. 299 Vice Chair Gisselquist noted that this plan, similar to the Comprehensive Plan, would 300 provide guidance under state law, but also set a minimum standard to follow. 301 Ms. Bloom noted that while working with the plan and adopted by reference, there would 302 be changes over the life of the plan as rules changes (e.g. sustainability focus increases); 303 or as codes are updated (e.g. snow removal requirements for private businesses to 304 reduce or eliminate contaminated sediment). Ms. Bloom noted past examples, such as 305 the new ordinance recently approved by the City Council prohibiting use of coal tar 306 sealant on driveways. Ms. Bloom noted that all area lakes eventually receive storm water, 307 as well as development-related issues that needed to be addressed. 308 Ms. Bloom clarified that the summary document was only thirty-five (35) pages in length, 309 and asked that the Commission not be intimidated by it, since one entire section beyond 310 that addressed goals and policies; with another three (3) pages addressing the proposed 311 implementation plan. 312 Ms. Bloom provided her e-mail address for Commissioners: 313 deb.bloom@ci.roseville.mn.us; and Vice Chair Gisselquist thanked Ms. Bloom and Mr. 314 Leaf for their presentation. 315 b. Review and discuss Commissioner/Variance Board Member Boguszewski’s 316 observations regarding current universally-applicable size limitations of accessory 317 structures (864 sq. ft., up to 1,008 sq. ft.) and whether changes should be 318 considered to regulate accessory structure size based on the size of the residential 319 lot. 320 Chapter 1004 (Residential Districts) of the Zoning Code was provided as a bench 321 handout, for reference. 322 Member Boguszewski reviewed his observation at a recent Variance Board meeting, at 323 which a variance was requested for an accessory building (e.g. storage shed). Member 324 Boguszewski advised that this prompted discussion on how accessory building was 325 determined when calculated on maximum lot area and potential issues depending on 326 how a lot was configured. 327 While that particular variance had been approved by the Board, Member Boguszewski 328 opined that he was struck that current ordinance didn’t address applications for a large lot 329 with an existing large principle structure. Member Boguszewski further opined that, 330 whether or not there was a large or small primary structure, current language addressed 331 both the same, with 864 square feet for an accessory building, up to 1,008 square feet by 332 meeting certain performance standards; with a combined area of accessory buildings not 333 exceeding 85% of the footprint of the principle structure. 334 Member Boguszewski suggested that, if the Commission was in agreement with the 335 concept of revising Code to address scalable limits, he suggested that Table 1004-1 of 336 the zoning code be revised as follows: 337 Accessory Building: 338 “In any case, combined area of accessory buildings shall not exceed 85% of the 339 footprint of the principle structure. Any building larger than 864 square feet up to 340 1,008 square feet by meeting [must meet the] performance standards in Section 341 1004.02A.2.” 342 Member Boguszewski sought Commissioner interest in making this recommendation to 343 the City Council; opining that it made sense to him to scale accessory structures to a 344 primary structure. For the record, Member Boguszewski advised that, in consideration of 345 full disclosure, neither he nor any friends had any intent to build accessory structures on 346 their lots, nor was he aware that any may have a home big enough that could abuse such 347 a provision as he was recommending. 348