pm_121609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 16, 2009 Page 5 Chair Doherty wholeheartedly supported the urban concept as an objective; however, noted it could be difficult to implement. Mr. Paschke noted that both were valid thoughts, and opined that the code would most likely change the most in that area and anticipated that design standards would be created within various zoning districts that would incorporate form and function (i.e., the massing issue) with options to mitigate those concerns. Mr. Paschke opined that there were not many commercial zones, or high-density residential areas that were not adjacent to single-family residential areas, since Roseville was not a suburb similar to Blaine allowing for more substantial buffer areas or available land for grass gateways and park land. Mr. Paschke advised the need to better address potential impacts, using the form and function of design, in the new code. Commissioner Boerigter noted that the vast majority of the City was R-1 and suggested the need to review residential restrictions of the code to make the vast bulk of the City better in the long-term for R-1 Districts, giving homeowners freedom, but encouraging them to make their neighborhood better (i.e., larger garages, controlling “McMansions”) and whether more or fewer restrictions were needed. Mr. Paschke concurred, noting the need to broaden what was there now to create neighborhoods in residential areas that will prove beneficial to the City in the future. Mr. Paschke noted that design standards were not a bad thing, and allowed the City to manage projects, using as an example of the installation of pervious pavers on a lot so a home’s area could increase without going through a more formal variance process as one challenge that was overcome in working with residents. Commissioner Boerigter noted another issue in residential areas was boat and/or motor home storage, whether to store outside or allow larger garages for indoor storage; whether current ordinance was too restrictive or not restrictive enough, allowing homeowners freedom, while protecting their neighbors. Commissioner Gisselquist concurred, noting that people had more stuff to store, given the success of storage businesses, and the need to look at what people may want to do on their properties in the future. Chair Doherty suggested that on-street parking needed to be reviewed, with some suburbs prohibiting it entirely; and parking related to the number of people in rental houses; noting that this was a concern repeatedly brought to his attention, including boats on trailers being parked on the street for months at a time during the summer, even when there appeared to be sufficient garage and/or driveway space; and impacts to snow plowing for on-street parking during the winter months. Commissioner Gottfried suggested addressing alternative energy sources (i.e., solar panels, wind turbines, etc.). Commissioner Boerigter noted that the comprehensive plan encouraged that. Chair Doherty noted Section C (1004) language, and a number people with motion lights around their home, and questioned whether they would be allowed if providing a strict reading of that section of the code. Chair Doherty suggested that technology has outpaced current rules. Additional discussion included minor tweaks to the sign code since it was adopted most recently (within the last four years) and whether there would be challenges with electronic signs based on current technology; parking issues (especially vans or buses) for group homes in the community based on State Statute, with staff advising that they had found receptiveness from managers of those types of use when complaints were brought to their attention; and parking trends reducing for commercial or business enterprises and how to balance sufficient parking with not building huge parking lots. Mr. Paschke indicated that future parking considerations may be for shared parking depending on use.