Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 03, 2012 <br />Page 8 <br />Discussion included current code language that provided restrictions on buildable area <br />349 <br />based on lot coverage and setbacks; maximum allowable improvement area; other <br />350 <br />coverage on lots beyond buildings and driveways that were part of the calculation (e.g. <br />351 <br />play structures, gazebos, pergolas, or other structures on the property beyond <br />352 <br />landscaping); potential impacts based on the age and lot sizes for some Roseville <br />353 <br />housing stock and properties; aesthetic considerations; and how the original 85% was <br />354 <br />developed. <br />355 <br />While recognizing the need to address the 50% mass impact limit and how it was <br />356 <br />contemplated, Mr. Paschke advised that conceptually, Member Boguszewski’s <br />357 <br />suggestion could work. <br />358 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that, prior to the Zoning Code update, previous calculations were <br />359 <br />complicated based on house styles and how main structure footprints were calculated. <br />360 <br />Member Boguszewski noted that this language revision would allow the upper end to <br />361 <br />float up with the size of the principle structure, while following the same restrictions <br />362 <br />currently in place; but keeping visual with the main property. <br />363 <br />Mr. Paschke expressed staff’s willingness, if directed by the Commission as a body, to <br />364 <br />perform further research and bring a revised draft to the Planning Commission prior to <br />365 <br />going forward with a Public Hearing. Mr. Paschke advised that the square foot numbers <br />366 <br />were most common throughout municipalities and their zoning ordinances and related to <br />367 <br />structures that triggered a Conditional Use. While concurring with Mr. Lloyd that previous <br />368 <br />City Code was problematic with 7-11 different items for accessory structure review, Mr. <br />369 <br />Paschke opined that the current language in the updated Zoning Code provided more <br />370 <br />clarity. However, Mr. Paschke expressed staff’s willingness to follow the lead of the <br />371 <br />Planning Commission; and suggested a more in-depth review of related issues may be <br />372 <br />appropriate as part of that analysis. <br />373 <br />In reviewing process, Mr. Lloyd advised that the proper course would be do develop a <br />374 <br />draft amendment to present to the City Council to determine their interest in initiating <br />375 <br />such a change; at which time, it would proceed as a charge to the Planning Commission <br />376 <br />for review and public comment at a formal Public Hearing. <br />377 <br />Further discussion included using Member Boguszewski’s recommended language as a <br />378 <br />starting point, with the size of accessory structures flexing with the primary structure, <br />379 <br />while still meeting restrictions; and whether additional design aesthetics or elements for <br />380 <br />accessory structures should be incorporated while not making it too complicated for <br />381 <br />residents, but ensuring a certain threshold and reaching a higher level of improvement <br />382 <br />that required enhanced design elements. <br />383 <br />The consensus of the Commission was that staff prepares an analysis, based on <br />384 <br />Member Boguszewski’s observations and recommended language, and seek feedback <br />385 <br />from the City Council as to their interest in proceeding. <br />386 <br />7. Adjourn <br />387 <br />Chair Gisselquist adjourned at approximately 7:58 p.m. <br />388 <br />