pm_050708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Page 9 Mr. Fifield opined that the Steering Committee was very cognizant of that need, and would be discussed in more detail in the near future as the plan developed. Chair Bakeman continued the Public Hearing, with no one appearing to speak. MOTION Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty to CONTINUE Project File 0004 to the June 2008 meeting. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. c. Project File 0014 Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment of Roseville City Code, Section 1011 (Nonconforming Uses) to achieve consistency between the City’s requirements and State Statute pertaining to nonconforming uses. Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0014. City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed staff’s analysis of this request, and recent revisions made by the State Legislature to Minnesota State Statute, Chapter 462.357, Subdivision 1.e (Nonconformities) providing added protection for property owners. Mr. Paschke advised that previous state law allowed a non-conforming structure or use to continue, but it could not be extended, expanded, intensified, or changed unless to be conforming. Mr. Paschke noted that the law had been amended to allow a structure or use to be continued, repaired, replaced, improved, and potentially expanded; and now also allowed for the reconstruction of a destroyed or damaged non-conforming structure provided certain procedural requirements were met. Mr. Paschke reviewed the recommended changes to existing City Code, specific to Roseville, but consistent with State Statute, as detailed in the project report. Mr. Paschke noted that City Code had been modified several years ago (i.e., setback variances), with specific note of shoreland management applications that did not allow for exceptions, with staff recommending APPROVAL of the request. Discussion included whether the application was for only residential properties, or included business and commercial properties; impacts to recently-adopted Twin Lakes provisions; existing and proposed language related to second stories, type of home design, and height restrictions already supported elsewhere in City Code; purpose of the proposed language revisions to clearly articulate City Code and bring it into compliance with State Statute to avoid misconceptions; and previous recommendations from the Lot Split Study Group and their recommendations for the City Council’s consideration of height restriction language in City Code. Chair Bakeman closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing to speak. MOTION Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Gottfried to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the proposed amendments to Roseville City Code, Section 1011; based on the comments and findings detailed in the project report dated May 7, 2008; amended as follows: ? Approval based on the presumption that language modifications apply only to residential properties; ? Approval based on the presumption that language modifications also apply to pre-1959 parcels Chair Bakeman expressed concern in recommending approval of the proposed language amendment prior to staff clarification of several issues: whether specific to residential properties or also to business and commercial properties; and whether pre-1959 residential parcels were included.