Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 <br />Page 10 <br />Gisselquist opined that he would support this as it created an opportunity for the college <br />456 <br />in meeting their needs; and he had no issues with the request. <br />457 <br />MOTION <br />458 <br />Member Keynan moved, seconded by Member Daire to recommend to the City <br />459 <br />Council APPROVAL of the TEXT AMENDMENTS to Section 1001 Definitions, Table <br />460 <br />1005-1, and Section 1011.12E Property Performance Standards of the Zoning <br />461 <br />Ordinance; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the <br />462 <br />recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated May 7, 2014. <br /> <br />463 <br />With concurrence by Mr. Paschke, Member Murphy spoke in support of the motion as <br />464 <br />stated; noting that further consideration of revising boarding school language as <br />465 <br />discussed relative to Section 5.1 of the staff report could be revised in the future following <br />466 <br />staff’s research. If appropriate, Mr. Paschke noted that further language revisions, if <br />467 <br />consistent with tonight’s Planning Commission discussion, could be added to staff’s <br />468 <br />recommendations before this request was heard by the City Council; and the chart <br />469 <br />changed accordingly and if still appropriate, and at the discretion of the Commission. <br />470 <br />By consensus, the Commission agreed to this process as described by Mr. Paschke, <br />471 <br />asking that the Planning Commission be copied with the report resulting from that <br />472 <br />research and the revised recommendations to the City Council. <br />473 <br />Mr. Paschke duly noted that request. <br />474 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />475 <br />Nays: 0 <br />476 <br />Motion carried. <br />477 <br />At this time, this item is scheduled for City Council action at their May 19, 2014 meeting. <br />478 <br />6. Other Business <br />479 <br />Discuss the Subdivision Code update and minimum LDR-1 lot size standards. <br />480 <br />Mr. Paschke provided the background for this discussion, introducing Ms. Cadence Peterson, an <br />481 <br />Intern with the Humphries Institute, who began her internship with the City of Roseville’s Planning <br />482 <br />Division in October of 2013; and was charged with reviewing the concerns and issues in the <br />483 <br />existing Subdivision Ordinance in relationship with other City Codes, and comparisons with other <br />484 <br />municipal codes providing information on their lot sizes. Mr. Paschke suggested that tonight’s <br />485 <br />initial discussion focus on minimum lot sizes in LDR-1 Districts, and related nuances in City Code; <br />486 <br />with more detailed language considered at a later date as it was related to the Subdivision <br />487 <br />Ordinance. <br />488 <br />Ms. Peterson presented information specific to previous discussions held in 2010 related to <br />489 <br />dimensional requirements for lot sizes; and public concerns raised that such a change may <br />490 <br />dramatically alter the character of Roseville. Ms. Peterson noted that the proposed changes <br />491 <br />would have reduced the existing minimum lot size in LDR-1 Districts from 11,000 to 9,500 square <br />492 <br />feet, and the minimum lot width from 85’ to 75’. <br />493 <br />Ms. Peterson reviewed the justification for the proposed reduced lot sizes, since roughly 55% of <br />494 <br />Roseville residential lots in LDR-1 District did not comply with current standards at the higher <br />495 <br />minimum lot area, making them non-conforming; and also the Shoreline Ordinance did not take <br />496 <br />those dimensions into account, since they had higher dimensional requirements. <br />497 <br />Ms. Peterson reviewed other first and second ring suburbs in the metropolitan area and those <br />498 <br />with similar dimensional requirements to those of Roseville’s existing lot sizes (e.g. Vadnais <br />499 <br />Heights, Cottage Grove and Eagan), those with standards similar to the proposed reductions (e.g. <br />500 <br />No. St. Paul, Woodbury, Bloomington and St. Paul); and those with standards lower than the <br />501 <br />proposed lot dimensions (Minneapolis, Maplewood, Columbia Heights and New Hope). Ms. <br />502 <br />Peterson provided aerial photos of each showing perspectives on land use patterns and <br />503 <br />residential density, street patterns, and tree cover, and whether or not there was an increase in <br />504 <br />the amount of curving streets and/or tree cover. Ms. Peterson advised that the overall findings <br />505 <br /> <br />