2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 22 didn’t have that great of a separation (e.g. row homes and/or pocket homes) with the 1083 development attempting to emulate a row home while creating a new urban type of 1084 development with green space. Mr. Paschke clarified that this is definitely an urban 1085 development, not single-family residential, and therefore it didn’t seem realistic to look at 1086 it from that perspective. Mr. Paschke advised that he disagreed with the logic under the 1087 former code that never anticipated this type of unit or development. 1088 If this zoning text amendment was changed, Member Daire questioned if it would allow 1089 the Dale Street Project to proceed as proposed; with Mr. Paschke responding 1090 affirmatively, noting that the applicant had other things to address beyond this with their 1091 proposal, and questioned if their final proposal would resemble this concept plan as it 1092 proceeded to a final project. 1093 Member Daire, focusing on the recommended zoning text amendment across the City, 1094 suggested returning to that discussion, using the Dale Street Project as one instance of 1095 when the proposed amendment could come forward, with both considerations relevant. 1096 Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at approximately 9:48 p.m.; with no one 1097 appearing for or against. 1098 Member Boguszewski concurred with Mr. Paschke’s most recent comments that this 1099 urban design development is new to Roseville, and in as much as the width of the alley 1100 per se is acceptable in this dense of a development to make it attractive and to meet the 1101 market forces for the developer to contend with for potential buyers. However, outside 1102 that bubble, and taken in context with what already exists and people already living in 1103 Roseville and not an urban area to the degree of Minneapolis or St. Paul proper, Member 1104 Boguszewski noted that this Dale Street Project served as an example of what could be 1105 allowed with such a zoning text amendment. Member Boguszewski advised that his 1106 concern was with that interface for urban bubbles plopped down in suburban density 1107 neighborhoods, and how best to protect those existing homes versus new homeowners 1108 coming into the new development. Member Boguszewski admitted that he wasn’t sure 1109 how to address that: whether it was just property lines, setbacks, or with the width of the 1110 ring road speaking to the distance between the outermost edge of the pocket 1111 development and existing neighborhood. Member Boguszewski reiterated that his 1112 concern was not between the parts of the development itself, but that interaction with 1113 what is already outside it; and again expressed his confusion as to where to address 1114 those concerns to consider and protect that separation. 1115 Mr. Paschke asked Member Boguszewski what they were trying to be protected from. 1116 Member Boguszewski responded that his concern with the Dale Street Project was that 1117 the western alley would impact the existing single-family home; as well as those on the 1118 other side, which may not be of great concern in context, but may impact the overall 1119 sales of the project itself. 1120 Associate Planner Lloyd noted requirements proposed in Table 1004-5 that would 1121 address new and existing setbacks related to periphery property lines; and regardless of 1122 the width of the alley and ring road, it appeared that there was a strong interest from the 1123 Commission to ensure adequate space. Mr. Lloyd suggested that simply increasing that 1124 setback number in the Table was an option, even if there was no setback requirement 1125 from single-family detached homes, perhaps a required setback from the periphery 1126 needed to be greater to mitigate those impact concerns. 1127 Member Boguszewski suggested that the periphery setbacks (second line from the 1128 bottom of Table 1004-5) could increase from 30’ to 45’, and would sufficiently address his 1129 main concern. 1130 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the intent of that portion of the Table for interior property line setbacks 1131 and the periphery addressing the separation of buildings contemplated in a development 1132 and how far they were from other properties; within that distance of 30’ or 45’ an alley of 1133 some dimension and providing other space between the alley and property line. 1134