pm_060309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Page 2 Ms. Radel responded that she saw form-based planning in Roseville, consistent with the City’s updated Comprehensive Plan and the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process, with the need to incorporated long-term planning, allowing faith in that vision, and by tweaking specific districts or areas with a hybrid code integrating traditional and form-based planning processes, slowly evolving into becoming more pedestrian oriented. Ms. Radel opined that similar results could be performed to some extent in the City’s existing code; however, she asked Commissioners to consider their code focus, whether for prescriptive uses or not. City Planner Thomas Paschke opined that it was difficult to build into a typical code – like that of Roseville – the flexibility that those guiding documents talk about – whether form-based or hybrid. Commissioner Glenn Cook arrived at this time. Discussion included common emerging: pedestrian areas; development orientation; parking location and the “right” amount of parking for a specific type of use (i.e., shared parking between facilities; on street parking); impacts to single-family environments similar to Grand Avenue; identification of specific streets, nodes, corridors, or districts where form-based opportunities were indicated; three different types of business uses (i.e., Community, Regional, and Neighborhood) and how form-based planning could better orient parking than current “seas of asphalt” and reducing pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns in crossing large parking lots; internal site connectivity; and the failures or challenges of mixed-use developments in this economic market. Dr. Schively-Slotterback provided several examples; specific code provisions and language; and guidelines allowing ranges for minimum and maximum flexibility; and potential options for consideration by the City. Commissioner Boerigter opined that it seemed rather pompous for the Planning Commission and City Council to require a more extreme or complex design process or social engineering at its worst; with complaints often voiced by a vocal minority rather than representative of the entire Roseville population. Commissioner Boerigter cited, as an example, the Twin Lakes guidelines in place, and still ending up with a park and ride facility in the redevelopment area. Commissioner Gisselquist opined his support for providing graphics or photos portraying examples in planning guidelines, rather than excessive narrative, to provide easier interpretation of intent by the public. Commissioner Gisselquist noted that he remained open to debate as to whether prescriptive or other zoning applications were preferable; opining that the current narrative nature and complex zoning code seemed more confusing to him, and it seemed that providing more graphics would be a step in the right direction, even with the existing code. Dr. Schively-Slotterback provided options to consider, including entire rewriting of the current zoning code to a form-based code; using a hybrid approach, adding form-based elements to use- based regulations in the City’s existing zoning code that could include implementing overlay district(s) to focus on key districts, nodes or corridors; add form-based district or guidelines for key uses; or simply enhancing current code content with graphics. Dr. Schively-Slotterback suggested that the City answer the question, “what kind of place does Roseville want to be;” and “what kind of ‘form’ is desired?” Dr. Schively-Slotterback suggested consideration of which tool – or combination thereof – best fit Roseville; unique characteristics that should be promoted to distinguish districts, nodes, or corridors; and how to emphasize establishing a public vision to provide a good base from which to work. Ms. Radel noted that tonight’s presentation was informational only, and not intended for debate. Ms. Radel advised that staff would be coming forward at the next meeting for Planning Commission review of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) framed around questions specific to form-based, hybrid, and traditional codes. Further discussion included any examples of other built-out suburban communities that have adopted form-based or hybrid zoning, with staff advising that they had been unable to find any examples through their research and discussions with consultants, and noting that all metropolitan communities were in similar situations of reviewing their zoning codes.