CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1026 Public Comment 1027 T M c G ehee, 77 Mid O aks Lane 1028 M McGe hee provided written co dated July 14, 2010 and entitled, "Proposed Zoning 1029 Ch anges," attached here and made apart thereof, related to the overall proposed, with 1030 co m ments conta he p erception of the requirements of t M etropol i tan Co the Ci 1031 20 Co m prehensive Pla and specific com related to Residential Districts, as well as 1032 C o m merci al and M ixed U se Districts. 1033 M s. McGe h e e requested a copy of Pl Co M ember W ozniak's comments, which 1034 st had p rovided for the p ublic in the rear of the Co cha 1035 M McGe h e e opined tha there had been little presented to -date or oppo provided for 1036 pu blic co mm ent; and fu rt h er opined that when the open house had been held on rena 1037 di th ere was lan included defining square footage, which had been m ore palatable i 1038 as suring re s i dents; howe she noted that such lan was no longer i ncluded. M s. M cGehee 1039 st ated that residents had cl early stated that they w not interested in any m ore retail 1040 de in the co and questioned how the p roposed changes furt hered the goals 1041 stated by the Community. Ms. McGehee alleged that the proposed rewrite actually created open 1042 season for development, signified by the heated discussion at the June Planning Commission 1043 meeting by residential property owners in the Har Mar Mall neighborhood. Ms. McGehee opined 1044 that it was the desire of residents that there was an acknowledgement b the City that commercial 1045 development in Roseville serve its citizens and not predominantly those traveling through 1046 neighborhoods, and impacting the City's emergency services and infrastructure, in addition to 1047 other taxpayer- funded amenities. 1048 Bob Venters, 1964 Fairview 1049 Mr. Venters noted that he had only performed an initial review of the documents; however, he 1050 expressed his concern about the proposed reduced minimum lot sizes and detail for 1051 implementation and whether that would be retroactive. 1052 Mr. Paschke noted that this discussion was related to Residential Districts and should be 1053 addressed at that time. 1054 As a brief point of clarification, Chair Doherty reviewed the history of approximately 53% of the 1055 City's existing residential lots that are non conforming because they fail to meet the existing 1056 minimum lot size requirements within the City, and estimated at between 5 -6,000 lots. Chair 1057 Doherty noted that that noncompliance negatively impacted residents in attempts to expand on or 1058 redevelop their homes and/or properties. Chair Doherty advised that the intent of the reduced lot 1059 size to 9,500 square feet, and 75' lot width would bring approximately 93% of those 1060 nonconforming lots into conformity. 1061 When asked by Mr. Venters of the potential impact to the community in subdivision of lots, Mr. 1062 Paschke advised that there was only an estimated seventy (70) residential lots that could be 1063 divided under the current subdivision ordinance; and opined that by reducing the lot width 1064 requirements minimally, there would be limited change in potential subdivisions from the 1065 existing ordinance; and that any subdivisions would need to be heard at the Planning Commission 40