2014_04_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Thursday, April 10, 2014 Page 5 At the request of Mr. Nacey, Mr. Lloyd confirmed that the City’s HRA had nothing to do 191 with this proposed development. 192 Mike Metz 193 Mr. Metz questioned if a variance could be granted and the property remain LDR-1 194 zoning, since staff had stated that many LDR-1 lots would be considered LDR-2 today. 195 Mr. Lloyd responded affirmatively; but clarified that those lots may fail to meet minimum 196 lot requirements, since most were pre-existing from the City’s original 1959 zoning code, 197 and variance could be possible to allow for smaller lots. However, Mr. Lloyd opined that it 198 wouldn’t be a very good solution, as the variance tool was meant to get to desired ends 199 when other options failed; and were strictly regulated by recently revised state law. 200 Mr. Metz spoke in support of allowing the development through a variance, and retaining 201 zoning as LDR-1 to meet the aesthetics and lot sizes of neighbors, while avoiding the 202 possibility of higher density. 203 Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the lot size and arrangement is not the only reason for the 204 proposed LDR-2 zoning, but also in order to relocate drainage easements to provide 205 better function of that storm water management than currently existed, which relied on 206 the narrower lot width requirements on Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 coming up Farrington to site 207 that storm water infrastructure while remaining consistent with existing lot sizes in the 208 neighborhood. 209 No one else appeared to speak; Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. 210 MOTION 211 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Stellmach to recommend to the City 212 Council APPROVAL of the proposed REZONING, EASEMENT VACATION, AND 213 PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property at 297-311 County Road B, based on the 214 comments and findings of Sections 4-8 and the recommendation of Section 9 of 215 the staff report dated April 10, 2014. 216 Member Boguszewski stated that he was very glad to see this proposed single-family 217 development in Roseville; and offered no reason for him to doubt the intent of the 218 developer to create those homes on these lots. While recognizing that hypothetically, it 219 may be possible at some point in the distant future that a twin home or duplex could be 220 allowed on these lots, given the alternative development potential for this site, this 221 proposal was a good one; and this method would enable it to happen. From his 222 understanding of the use of variances, Mr. Boguszewski opined that other guidelines 223 required for granting a variance would prohibit the Commission from using that tool, as no 224 practical hardships were in evidence nor could a variance be justifiably granted in this 225 interest, since the consideration is based on configuring the lots for positive mitigation of 226 existing drainage issues. 227 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd advised that LDR-1 zoning allowed for 228 auxiliary units (e.g. mother-in-law units), referred to as “accessory dwellings” in City 229 Code. 230 Member Cunningham expressed appreciation for the variance clarification, as she had 231 also been curious as to why that option hadn’t been considered. If all lots were around 232 70’ in width, Member Cunningham asked staff why they were not originally considered as 233 LDR-2 zoning. 234 Mr. Lloyd advised that it was less of an intentional circumstance versus meeting specific 235 zoning districts as the zoning code received a massive overhaul in 2010 from the existing 236 code adopted in 1959, when the standard lot size was larger than most lot sizes currently 237 in existence for single-family homes in the community. 238 Mr. Paschke concurred with Mr. Lloyd, noting that each lot in the City was not analyzed to 239 determine which were substandard, as most single-family residential lots were simply 240 zoned LDR-1; after which LDR-2 was created to allow for additional options in the 241