Laserfiche WebLink
City Cour�cil Study 5ession <br />DRAFT M3nutes of Monday, May �4, 2007 <br />Pa�e 6 <br />1 one szngle-famxly residentia� zoning dist�iei may be advantageous. <br />2 Mr. Grefenberg �urther summarized the Ciiy's current zoning sian- <br />3 dards related to minimum lot sizes and widths and dep�hs; �ront, back <br />4 and side yard setback requirements; and shoreland area differentials. <br />5 <br />6 Mr. Grefenbe�g addr�ssed neighborhaod contextTbased regulations, <br />� �uch as "sliding scale" regulations used by �he Ci�ies o� Edina and <br />8 Bloomington, and their application to Roseville; Roseville's <br />9 neighborhood vitality is one of the community's s�rengths; and Mr. <br />x � Gre�cnberg expressed his personal consideration of eontextual zoning <br />i 1 �or Rosevi�le, u�ti1 applying it to �he city. He feit that it had unrealistic <br />� 2 outcomes for the cornmunity. <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />Mr. Grefenberg no��d that th� "MeM�nsian" issue was raised and ad- <br />dressed; no�ing that current Roseville C�ty Code provided rest�ictions <br />(height and minamum side yard setbacksj that would preclude many <br />problems being experienced in other suburbs. Mr. Grefenb��-� furiher <br />noied that "cluster housing" was also discussed. <br />One of the r�commendations of the CAG was for a new zoning dis- <br />trict that wau�c� apply to axeas that historically deve�oped with lots <br />srnaller than existing standards (i.e., p�atted prio� to IV�ay 21, 1959). <br />24 Mr. Doherty provided a summary of the CAG'� recommendations; di- <br />25 �ided into fou� major categories: A. General Single-Family Residen- <br />26 tia� Subdiv�sion Policy; B. Subdivisio� Code; C. Zoning Code; and D. <br />27 Othex City Sta�dards and 4ardinance�. The written xeport prouided <br />28 de�ail�d examples, discussion considerations, and ratzonale and moti- <br />29 va�ion for the consensus opinivns o�' the CAG, and noied one area <br />30 where consensus was not achieved rel�ted to flag Iats. <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />�4 <br />35 <br />35 <br />37 <br />38 <br />Mr. Doherty cp�cluded by noiing tha�, whil� no� part of the CAG's <br />orig�nal charge, continual feedback and comments were heard from <br />citizens — both residential and eomrnercial inte:rests -� regarding thezx <br />eoncern �or envirpnmentai issues, a�ong with t�ee pres�rva� <br />tion/replaccmen�, and citizen desire �or an ordinance to make policy <br />moare exp�icit other �han what is intim��ed in cu�rent code. <br />