CC_Minutes_2008_0128 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, January 28, 2008 Page 14 Public Comment Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane Ms. McGehee concurred with Councilmember Ihlan's interpretation; opining that City Code was ofCen ambiguous, and that the City Council needed to carefully consider such ambiguities. Ms. McGehee questioned the Overlay District identi- fication of 55% of the homes in Roseville, opining that in actuality non- conforming lots consisted of approximately 21.8% of those lots. On a related note, Ms. McGehee opined that maps included in packets were "to- tally useless" when not colored, and didn't allow for a clear understanding. Mayor Klausing apologized for the poor quality, noting staff's attempt to keep copying costs down; and assured Ms. McGehee that attempts in the future would be made to make maps more readable. Ms. McGehee spoke in support of a comprehensive review of the City's Subdivi- sion Policies, in conjunction with the bnagine Roseville 2025 community vision- ing process, and the Comprehensive Plan Update, opining that the review was long overdue and would eliminate many ambiguities. Ms. McGehee read a por- tion of the Edina City Code related to impacts of proposed plats and/or subdivi- sions, and their compatibility and suitability related to the density, character, and intended use of a neighborhood. Ms. McGehee expressed hope that, with the comprehensive review of City Code, the City Council would keep in mind that the City of Roseville was a community of neighborhoods and would support the community's evidenced diversity. Ms. McGehee provided a memorandum with several relevant documents attached. Councilmember Ihlan suggested that, rather than proceeding with moving to adopt the proposed ordinance, additional discussion ensue highlighting ways the proposed district language could be clarified to avoid ambiguous or contradictory interpretations or provisions; opining that the proposed ordinance didn't meet the intent and actually served to create smaller lot sizes. Councilmember Roe opined that he didn't see those purported ambiguities or con- tradictions. Councilmember Pust thanked staff for clarifying the language of Section 1009.g; however, opined that she remained unconvinced that the chart was ambiguous, and appeared to directly track the ordinance language. Klausing moved, Roe seconded, enactment of Ordinance No. 1359 entitled, "An Ordinance Amending Title 10 and Title 11, Zoning and Subdivision Codes."