CC_Minutes_2013_0211 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,February 11, 2013 Page 25 At the request of Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Paschke advised that "junk" or undesirable trees had been recommended and brought to staffs attention by the City Forester. Page 2, lines 73-74 Discussion included clarification of impervious surface options, current zoning code not specifying residential stormwater permits; existing lots and homes versus new lots and construction and how to accommodate each, as well as addressing pre-existing conditions. Page 3, line 90 Councilmember McGehee sought definition of "benign" outdoor storage, with Mr. Trudgeon suggesting this was based on passive versus actively used storage; and Mr. Paschke noting that this code restriction was intended to be far-reaching to differentiate between which have more impact or needed screening versus those that didn't, and in consideration of adjacent property uses as well. Building Height Mayor Roe suggested discussion on setback versus height, based on past discus- sions related to impacts to adjacent properties, such as staggering the height of taller buildings for less impact to adjacent single-family residential buildings. Further discussion included height limitations in various zoning designations; and whether there was or should be any height restriction in the Twin Lakes Area; the need to provide no height restriction for high-end uses such as office uses; height restrictions in business use areas close to residential properties or not needed in areas surrounded by other commercial/industrial uses or near highways/roads; and possible area west of Rosedale that may be suitable for staggering heights or re- moving height restrictions in Regional Business districts, unless accommodated through a Conditional Use. Councilmember Willmus echoed the comments of Councilmember McGehee re- garding garage setbacks; and suggested it was only appropriate for a new devel- opment, suggesting a ratio would be more appropriate to serve the aesthetic value if spoken to at all. Mr. Paschke noted the infill development most prevalent in Roseville made a dis- tinction from communities or areas having larger parcels of land available for de- velopment and new construction. Mr. Paschke advised that the rationale for that code requirement and design standard was as a result of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning discussion and that of the updated Comprehensive Plan moving forward. Mr. Paschke noted there may be flexibility without a step- back garage.