CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

*2 18 Mr. Paschke advised that staff was seeking comment from the Commission as to their agreement 2 19 or disagreement with that percentage as recommended by staff; and advised that there were 1220 currently no impervious coverage limitations for commercial areas other than those in place and 1221 for setback requirements. 1222 Rainbow site on Larpenteur Avenue 1223 Member Boerigter questioned under which district this recently- developed property would fall 1224 with the proposed zoning code revisions; and conceptually, if the application was presented today 1225 how the redevelopment may have looked. 1226 Mr. Paschke opined that it was more Commercial than Regional Business; and would have been 1227 subject to the requirements of the proposed zoning ordinance once adopted; and reminded 1228 Commissioners that many building are nonconforming, regardless of when built, but pre- existing 1229 buildings are not judged against yet- to -be- adopted regulations. 1230 Member Boerigter opined that the proposed design standards are too onerous, and while the 1231 illustrations apply mainly to Mixed Use, the design standards were applicable to many other uses, 1232 and cited several examples of existing buildings. 1233 Mr. Paschke noted that these design standards were advocated by the community in the Imagine 1234 Roseville 2025 visioning process and by the Steering Committee making recommendations on the 1235 Comprehensive Plan update; and further noted that a number of Planned Unit Developments 1236 (PUD's) approved to -date and including heightened design standards had been a culmination of 1 237 that advocacy. W238 Mr. Paschke advised the illustrations were attempting to identify certain forms, materials and 1239 designs, not meant to be the absolute. 1240 Ms. Rhees suggested that the illustrations could be changed, added to or deleted; and that they 1241 were meant to be illustrative, not regulatory. Ms. Rhees suggested that the new illustrations 1242 provide examples of some new office buildings in Roseville or the area with the same type of 1243 pedestrian- oriented features and windows along the sidewalk. 1244 Chair Doherty encouraged Ms. Rhees to revamp the illustrations as she indicated. 1245 General Comments/Discussion 1246 Chair Doherty questioned the identify of the City's Zoning Administrator as referenced; with Mr. 1247 Paschke advised that this would be identified in the definition section as the City's Planning 1248 Division, not a specific person. 1249 Discussion included Dimensional Standards (page 7); whether lot size requirements were needed 1250 for Regional Business Districts, or if guidance of the Comprehensive Plan for RB was sufficient 1251 in a community that was fully developed such as Roseville. 1252 Additional Public Comment 1253 Tam McGehee 1254 Ms. McGehee opined that, as the only member of the public to speak on this, the previous 255 discussion was disconcerting, with the Planning Commission asked to approve a zoning code that