pm_121609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 16, 2009 Page 3 Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Chair Doherty noted that the case was scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their December 21, 2009 meeting. 6. Other Business Work with the Planning Division staff to review the existing Zoning Regulations and provide comments regarding the Commission’s issues, problems, and areas they believe require modification and/or elimination. This information will be used by the Planning Division as they proceed forward with the zoning code rewrite. Introduction Mr. Paschke advised that the document previously provided to the Commission was to serve as an exercise in the perusal of the zoning ordinance as they served to make Recommendations and enforce the zoning ordinance through their actions with various projects coming before the body. Mr. Paschke sought comment on any issues of concern from the Commission for staff and the planning consultants to include in their review and rewrite of the ordinance. Section A – Purpose Statement Chair Doherty questioned including protection of the public’s health, safety and “morals” and whether that was typically included in a municipal document’s purpose statement, opining that it seemed ambiguous from his perspective. Commissioners concurred that there appeared to be a number of outdated language terms that needed to be updated to be more in line with today’s vernacular. Other language updates by various commissioners included whether “business” and “manufacturing” areas (Section B) were actually inclusive of all commercial areas; whether “air” references in Section B were better defined as “pollution issues, such as fumes;” and language review based on other communities and Recommendation of the consultant. Mr. Lloyd suggested that the zoning ordinance’s purpose statement was to lay the groundwork and rules of the established goals guided in the comprehensive plan, like advancing environmental factors, based on statements in the comprehensive plan, such as facilitating good, green development projects, relating back to the comprehensive plan as its basis. Definitions Mr. Paschke noted that staff had already identified several additional definitions to be added, others with issues and concerns, and others needing clarification or currently having some ambiguity, with existing definitions needing more clear definition. Commissioner Boerigter suggested that the rewrite needed to make sure the definitions were still used or still had a meaning, and should be cross-referenced and consistent for meaningful use rather than just the redundant use of a word. Commissioner Boerigter noted that multiple definitions were not needed if its use specific to one situation. Discussion included definitions such as “airport” not applicable to the City of Roseville; “apartments/hotels” versus “long-stay or extended stay hotels;” and Recognizing words within sections needing definition that will ultimately feed into this section, with the document itself driving the definitions section. Further discussion included definition of “family” in relationship to the number of people living in a home, whether related or exclusive to families; whether this language would indicate discrimination against non-traditional families; intent of the original language to regulate or restrain the number of residents (i.e., students or rental housing) to a reasonable use in single-family homes or other rental units; definition of “lodging rooms’ and the need to update it.