2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 20 fencing or landscaping that would also develop as part of this or any future proposal. Mr. 978 Paschke clarified that, from his perspective, it may have been better to not have a site 979 plan available to use as an example and to simply talk about this in general to avoid 980 focusing on this particular site plan and types of structures proposed, and not necessarily 981 in this particular design or site layout. However, Mr. Paschke opined that it was now hard 982 to separate this project from the proposed text amendments, when the recommendations 983 were based on challenges found by staff that needed to be clarified as review of 984 proposals were coming forward and based on realistic versus conceptual use and 985 application. 986 Member Daire noted that the proposed text amendment was tied to the Dale Street 987 Project via the staff report; and his gut reaction was therefore that it was being brought 988 forward at this time to fit into that specific project, even though it will also fit with any 989 future developments in an MDR zoning district. Therefore, Member Daire questioned if it 990 was applicable to say the Project was only an example, when it was in actuality the route 991 for the proposed text amendments. Member Daire recognized that, since the Dale Street 992 Project was proposed on City-owned property, the goal was to make it work and proceed; 993 with the HRA having defined its preferences and the process was now to make it work. 994 Member Daire advised that he was not opposed to that process, and he also was willing 995 to concur that any text amendments would be applicable city-wide and not just this 996 project; however, he did note that the emphasis was being placed on this revision due to 997 having put emphasis on the Dale Street Project, even though it may apply to the 998 remainder of the City’s MDR zoning districts. 999 Member Murphy sought clarification on the proposed changes to Table 1004-5 on page 6 1000 of the staff report and last row for alley setback ranges and rationale for them. Member 1001 Murphy also questioned if the intent of those setbacks was to allow landscaping or 1002 mounding. 1003 Mr. Paschke reviewed the proposed revisions for one-family, two-family, attached, and 1004 multi-family properties, opining that the rationale was that a multi-family or apartment 1005 complex had a greater impact than a small lot, single-family residential property. As those 1006 setbacks related to townhomes potentially on a larger parcel in Roseville (similar to 1007 Lexington and Roselawn Avenues tucked back with a ring road), Mr. Paschke opined that 1008 perhaps a road could be placed adjacent to a residential property along the periphery, 1009 with a setback greater than 5’ indicated in such a scenario depending on the number of 1010 units. Mr. Paschke advised that City Code allowed fencing or landscaping, consistent 1011 with the zoning ordinance and driveways, and the alley setback requirement was not 1012 added to the chart for that specific purpose, as in negotiations with anyone, the minimum 1013 requirement would remain 5’. 1014 Based on the Dale Street Project, Member Murphy noted that the applicant had 7’ now, 1015 and with the proposed 5’, an additional 2’ was provided at the narrowest point. 1016 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke advised that the alley setback for 1017 the Dale Street Project would be from the blue line displayed to the curb edge with the 1018 setback in the rear of the garages in excess of 30’. Further discussion ensued specific to 1019 that Project and displayed maps and concept drawings under current and recommended 1020 zoning code text. 1021 Member Boguszewski opined that from his perspective, the problem was that there was 1022 nothing mandating a setback from the rear of the structure (garage) to the adjacent rear 1023 property line. Mr. Paschke questioned the rationale of Member Boguszewski, opining that 1024 the alley only added pavement, and nothing else was to be gained. Member 1025 Boguszewski responded that his concern was in the width of the alley especially if the 1026 garages were directly up against it with no setback requirement; opining that there was a 1027 need for some area for separation. 1028 Chair Gisselquist concurred with the concerns raised by Member Boguszewski, and 1029 discussion ensued regarding off-street parking, traffic flow, and density concerns; with 1030