2015-11-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 4, 2015 Page 2 Public Hearing 5. 43 Chair Boguszewski reviewed the protocol for public hearings and subsequent process. 44 PROJECT FILE 0017 45 Request by the City of Roseville for approval of certain minor, clarifying text amendments 46 to Roseville City Code, Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 (Subdivisions) 47 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at 6:37 p.m. 48 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd provided a brief history of proposed minor, clarifying text 49 amendments to existing City Code, Title 10 (Zoning) and Title 11 9Subdivisions) as detailed in the 50 staff report dated November 4, 2015. Mr. Lloyd advised that the proposed text amendments 51 related to residential accessory buildings, additional standards for specific uses in all districts, and 52 plat procedures in the City’s subdivision code to mirror state statute and as detailed in the report, 53 and had come forward during practical application and staff reading/interpretation of existing text. 54 Residential Uses - Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) 55 Chair Boguszewski asked staff to illustrate the distinction between references to standard corner 56 and reverse corners. 57 Mr. Lloyd displayed a typical lot type illustration from current code and reviewed related front and 58 side streets; and distinctions with reverse corner lots that could have frontages on both the long 59 and short streets related to setbacks based on the type of lot and position of the primary 60 structure; and reviewed various orientations of those lots in conjunction with adjacent properties. 61 As noted by Member Murphy, if a new property and/or structure, a reverse lot could be addressed 62 at either corner provided no current address existed for a vacant lot, with the new owner of a 63 structure able to determine which way to face their home depending on design particulars and 64 preferences. 65 In referencing the 1004.02 Accessory Building Table (1004.1) (page 1, RPCA Attachment A), 66 Chair Boguszewski opined that compared with the text on page 4 of that same attachment, there 67 appeared to be some ambiguity related to established front or rear building lines, and sought 68 staff’s intent, if in fact to locate building lines further from either street. 69 By again using the illustration, Mr. Lloyd responded that the principle structure’s building line is 70 how setback requirements are established, and depending on the orientation of that principle 71 structure would determine the location as addressed in Table 1004-1. 72 Chair Boguszewski questioned the clarity of the text and/or table as currently proposed. 73 Based on staff’s familiarity with interpretation, Mr. Lloyd opined that he didn’t find the text or table 74 ambiguous, suggesting there may be a need for clarifying questions no matter how they were 75 written. 76 At the request of Member Gitzen, and again referencing the diagram, Mr. Lloyd explained 77 accessory building placement in relation to adjacent property lines. 78 Restaurants (RPCA, page 2, line 53) 79 Specific to the text and table, Chair Boguszewski sought further clarification related to the intent 80 to constrain multi-use buildings. 81 Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to remove the provision specific to restaurants in multi-use 82 buildings (e.g. office/business park and industrial park designations) to avoid stand-alone 83 restaurants. Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to remove that incorrect constrain of 84 restaurants only in multi-use buildings in Commercial Mixed Use (CMU) designated districts; with 85 that intent remaining relevant in the Employment designated district, as outlined in the RPCA 86 Attachment A (page 2), Section E.6. 87 Accessory Building minimum setback from other buildings or structures on the lot 88 Reverting back to the previous discussion on residential accessory buildings, Member 89 Cunningham expressed her fascination, based on her personal experience living on a reverse 90 corner lot and attempt to add an accessory building (shed) and its proposed placement found too 91 close to the property line (5’ versus 6’). Member Cunningham opined she had found that setback 92