2016-04-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 6, 2016 Page 15 Residential-1); based on public input, Planning Commission deliberation, and the 703 comments and findings contained in the staff report dated April 6, 2016. 704 Member Bull noted that zoning designation needed to be in compliance with the 705 comprehensive plan. 706 Ayes: 7 707 Nays: 0 708 Motion carried 709 Chair Boguszewski noted this proposal was scheduled to go before the City Council at 710 their April 25, 2016 meeting. 711 7. Public Hearing 712 PROJECT FILE 001: Request by the City of Roseville for approval of minor clarifying 713 amendments to Subdivision Code, Section 1103.06 (Lot Standards) 714 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 001 at 8:24 p.m. 715 Chair Boguszewski read an email from Mayor Roe serving as a cover letter to the bench handout 716 containing two recommendations of the mayor, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 717 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request as detailed in the staff report and attachments 718 dated April 6, 2016 and rationale for suggested changes. 719 1103.06A & B: Minimum Residential Lot Size 720 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was supportive of either Mayor Roe’s suggestion or that of staff. 721 1103.06F: Side Lot Lines 722 Specific to this provision on side lot lines, Mr. Lloyd spoke in support of retaining staff’s proposed 723 language. 724 Chair Boguszewski noted a case in point by using an example from the map displayed showing 725 the southwest corner of County Road B-2 West and the property line between address 1925 and 726 1935 that were not perpendicular to the road at that point. With agreement by Mr. Lloyd, Chair 727 Boguszewski cautioned provisions that were too vague or too specific or not enough, suggesting 728 some flexibility provided better implementation in the real world. 729 Member Bull referenced his review of city code and the lack of specificity to any degree in the 730 definition of “radial,” but had understood that radial could be from any angle to the point of 731 comparison. However, Member Bull was unable to find that particular code definition; nor was 732 staff able to find its location in a quick review of code during the meeting. 733 From a land surveyor’s perspective, Member Gitzen referenced standard radial lines and their 734 definition from the center of a curve to the lot line; and questioned if and/or where city code 735 deviated from that definition. If they differ, Member Gitzen noted the need for consistency and 736 clarification accordingly. 737 If Member Bull could provide the specific reference, Chair Boguszewski noted the need to 738 determine if the city had its own particular definition for “radial” different from that generally 739 accepted and understood by a math student or engineer in the real world. 740 Based on his experience on the Commission over the last year, Member Bull noted instances 741 where leeway was given to interpret it; and therefore questioned if staff considered there to be an 742 issue or perceived issue with the current wording, which he supported and found viable. Member 743 Bull questioned if that current language created any problems for the Planning Commission, City 744 Council or other city groups if left as is. 745 Mr. Lloyd noted the most recent challenge had been with Wheaton Woods and the proposed 746 undulating street frontage with property lines and defining whether or not they were perpendicular 747 or radial. 748 If and when the definition referenced by Member Bull can be located, Chair Boguszewski noted 749 the need to ensure that general interpretation for the definition of the term “radial” provided staff 750