pm_070502 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - Wednesday, May 02, 2007 Page 4 Mr. Doherty noted the CAG's suggested preamble to the City's Zoning, "...for the purpose of protecting and enhancing the character, stability, and vitality of residential neighborhoods as well as commercial areas;" to remain aware of neighborhood character contexts without making it a standard. Mr. Doherty concluded by noting that, while not part of the CAG's original charge, continual feedback and comments were heard from citizens - both residential and commercial interests - regarding their concern for environmental issues; along with tree preservation / replacement, and citizen desire for an ordinance to make policy more explicitly other than what is intimated in current code. Mr. Doherty noted that, given the tight timeline, the CAG didn't have sufficient time to develop specific criteria for each recommendation and the multiple issues required for discussion and recommendation. Mr. Doherty and Planning Chair Bakeman opened the meeting to public comment, noting that the comment would be included in the CAG's final report to the City Council, scheduled for May 14, 2007. Public Comment Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane Ms. McGehee had specific questions related to the number and identity of metropolitan communities used for standard lot size comparisons and their particular ordinance provisions; whether their non-conformity of lots in Roseville was based on dimensions or square footage; the CAG's consensus against spot zoning; rationale for a large lot district; concerns regarding the recent Acorn area subdivision request; and rationale for choosing the date of May 21, 1959 for designation of an overlay zoning district for single-family lots platted prior to that date as legally nonconforming lots. Ms. McGehee supported the preamble language as an overall consideration related to neighborhood character; tree preservation; diversity lot sizes within the community and preservation of some large lot areas; property owner assumptions regarding their quality of life and neighborhood characteristics; and majority rule of neighbors in opposing changes to their specific neighborhoods. Commissioners Bakeman and Doherty responded and noted: specifically reviewed a sliding scale for large lots; Bloomington and Edina ordinances; lot size comparisons in all first ring suburbs and the surprises found in that study (i.e., Roseville being having the second largest minimum standard lot size requirement in the metropolitan area with the exception of Mendota Heights; cities having multiple size standards; Roseville non-conforming lots (55%) based on dimensions and/or the 11,000 square foot minimums (22%); consensus opinion of the CAG that spot zoning was capricious and arbitrary; additional restrictions related to shoreland zoning; May 21, 1959 as the date of incorporation for the City related to legal non-conforming lots for single-family lots; and neighborhood association provisions for ongoing maintenance and aesthetics. CAG member Gary Grefenburg recognized the issues and concerns of Ms. McGehee, and opined that he had shared her concerns prior to and during initial discussions of the CAG; however, he noted that while there was tremendous conviction and intense passion initially for various opinions, the group amazingly reached a fair consensus for the entire community and recommended code revisions following those discussions, various considerations, and options available, including adequate protections addressed in current code restricting subdivisions, and in consideration of quantifiable measures.