pm_121609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 16, 2009 Page 4 Additional discussion included purposes for defining restaurants, fast food facilities, convenience stores, and other food-related businesses, the purpose for their specific designation (i.e., seating, traffic, drive-through, etc.) and the difference in table/counter service and disposable packaging and what was being attempted to protect. Mr. Paschke advised that some of this terminology was tied to liquor licensing and how that would be applicable (i.e., food-to-go or sit-down), and suggested that they could perhaps be grouped more appropriately based on impact or function of use rather than specifically ties to liquor sales, whether permitted or only conditional uses. Commissioner Gottfried noted the need to make the language more intentional for use over the next twenty (20) years for future business uses. Further discussion included redefining “shopping centers,” with the new comprehensive plan designations and changes in the retail designations (i.e., office, institutional, regional, neighborhood, community businesses; mixed uses) with those designations moving toward district zoning rather than definitions of a shopping center, and defined by the types of uses found in those designated areas, with commercial and retail areas split out in the comprehensive plan. Mr. Paschke noted that staff had created an internal document highlighting problematic or unclear areas of the code showing their areas of concern of substantial issues found in their experience in reviewing cases against current code, with their Recognition that the definitions will be redone on a wholesale level as the document is reviewed and refined, similar to the exercise being undertaken by the Commission, as well as those things that are working well, all with the intent to incorporate them into the new document to make it work better. Mr. Paschke noted substantial changes in the shoreland development area not needing immediate attention in the rewrite. Commissioner Gottfried suggested a general review of setbacks, specifically lakeshore, given the substantial and numerous variance issues having come before the Commission, specifically those properties having been developed prior to state action and how structures were oriented. Mr. Paschke advised that the City of Roseville’s experience was comparable to other communities with shoreland lots and development of those lots before ordinances were designed or updated. However, Mr. Paschke noted that State Statute prevented the City from enforcing more stringent setback requirements for existing structures or allowing them to be rebuilt in the same location. Mr. Paschke opined that a substantial conversation on setbacks would occur during the rewrite process to determine what is appropriate in Roseville when the City had developed over a number of decades, particularly with construction completed pre-code or even all lots developed after 1959 adhering to code standards. Mr. Paschke estimated that fifty-one (51%) of those lots had five foot (5’) side yards and were smaller lots; and that a determination would be needed on whether to reduce setbacks or eliminate certain situations in the process (i.e., variances for porches). Commissioner Gottfried advised that commercial setbacks were another concern, specifically those major corridors in the process of being redeveloped and adjacent to residential areas and how to establish setbacks and buffer areas, while supporting redevelopment of those businesses, but Recognizing the impacts to adjoining residential properties. Chair Doherty noted, as land in Roseville becomes more valuable, there would be more pressure to build higher, and review of setbacks based on the number of stories may be indicated, since complaints by neighbors concerning mass was a common concern. Commissioner Boerigter noted that, if the City was attempting to achieve a more urban feel in redevelopments, taller buildings and smaller setbacks were indicated, and depending on which corridor was under discussion, it may defeat the purpose of that urban concept to consider larger setbacks.