CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

199 Commissioner Boerigter requested that the upcoming Open House provide clarification on what 200 was allowed for Neighborhood Business based on proposed design standards. 201 Commissioner Boerigter discussed his concerns related to ideal versus practical parking mandates 202 on lots if a building was moved closer to the front in areas of redevelopment versus 203 redevelopment within an established area with smaller parcels; location of exits for the building 204 (front and rear doors for retail establishments) in relation to one or two checkout areas. 205 Mr. Paschke recognized the concerns of Commissioner Boerigter; however, noted staffs attempts 206 to comply with the goals and aspirations of the adopted Comprehensive Plan and how it spoke to 207 the essence of a commercial district, and staff's support of a zoning code that complied with that 208 Plan, as well as comments of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process, with both 209 of those products guiding the zoning code rewrite and allowing for additional flexibility. 210 Commissioner Boerigter noted a previous land use application to develop a property at Lexington 211 and B by pushing the building to the front of the property and locating property in the rear, and 212 how that proposal was negatively received. 213 Commissioner Gisselquist, in Section 1004.06 (Community Mixed Use), noted that, in the 214 attempt to get away from issuing PUD's, it appeared that another district was being created and 215 guided by a regulating map for each. In Section 1004.02, Commissioner Gisselquist expressed 216 some concerns about keeping things at the front and mandating two entrances, when the back 217 entry was usually used for deliveries, and may require a business to hire more personnel or create 218 security concerns. Also, in Section "c," Commissioner Gisselquist expressed concern in dictating 219 design standards to architects their specific design of a building's base, middle and top. 220 Mr. Paschke advised that, in accordance with form based zoning, a hybrid was suggested with 221 performance not predicated on a map or diagrams. Mr. Paschke opined that the goal of the 222 proposed design standards should serve to create more flexibility for creativity and varied 223 aesthetics for building design. 224 Discussion ensued regarding parking in the rear of a commercial building and practical 225 applications while attempting to facilitate a pedestrian friendly environment (Page 7.e parking 226 placement); specific examples for consideration; corner lots and frontage determined by the 227 property address; and practical problems in requiring that the front door face the street side rather 228 than the parking area. 229 Further discussion included realistic parking on interior lots versus corner lots. 230 Commissioner Gottfried, while recognizing that design functionality would be a challenge and 231 was a consideration, spoke in support of moving toward a more pedestrian- friendly situation over 232 the next twenty (20) years, especially for safety concerns (i.e., Lexington Avenue without 233 sidewalks); and expressed the need to initiate this design now, with the Comprehensive Plan 234 moving the City in that direction, with consideration required on a case by case basis, recognizing 235 that it would not work in every situation. Commissioner Gottfried opined that today, Roseville 236 was a "pedestrian- hazardous" community and needed to move forward through the transitional 237 issues for long -term modification throughout the City.