2010-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 12 common-sense approach to match lot size to what’s in a neighborhood, and not unusual 565 for urban neighborhoods. 566 Further discussion included design options for residential facades (e.g., discouraging 567 “garage scapes”); higher density districts and applicable design standards based on 568 incentives to encourage affordable housing or market rate units; transitions and 569 revitalization; and a preliminary analysis of suggested zoning districts. 570 Additional discussion included distinctions of land use functions and uses are automobile 571 intensive and those that are not; mixed use districts needing pedestrian-oriented uses; 572 office-residential with limited retail and where those may be appropriate as contrasted with 573 mixed use; and other preliminary designations; minimal changes proposed to the Parks 574 and Open Space Districts; and integration of revised DNR standards for shoreland 575 designations. 576 Further discussion included business park and office park designation and associated 577 parking requirements, driven by market and other forces with parking arrangements and 578 options available and conducive to pedestrian access; and examples available as that 579 discussion proceeds. 580 Ms. Rhees briefly reviewed an outline of how a future revised code could be organized 581 and comparisons to the existing code; provided as a bench handout, attached hereto 582 and made a part thereof, with a more logical sequence and general applications to all 583 districts; a separate section for environmental and performance standards; conditional 584 uses in one chapter (e.g., communication towers); building forms (defined building types) 585 as references rather than being prescriptive; and definitions proposed at the end of the 586 code, similar to an index rather than up front, with appendices for various application 587 types. 588 Additional discussion included how the Commission could better prepare themselves for 589 upcoming sessions, with the consultant proposing to provide research materials on a 590 consistent basis through staff, with suggested assignments. 591 Mr. Lamb reviewed proposed potential Commission assignments, including: 592 Help to explain/illustrate community character – residential neighborhoods in 593 o particular 594 Photos/listings of “exemplary” developments – development that the code should try 595 o to produce – within or outside the City 596 Open House on Feb. 4 – attend and help publicize 597 o Make notes on zoning map or take photos for us – examples – type of homes – how 598 o renovations and/or demolitions are occurring 599 Concluding discussion included substantial renovations and/or expansions on Parker 600 Avenue as an example; repetitive conflicts between neighbors as neighborhoods change 601 (i.e., Owasso Hills); future historic homes or areas within the next 15-20 years (i.e., 602 smaller ramblers built in the 1950’s on smaller lots with single-car garages); and how 603 current zoning applies and how it could fit better (i.e., lot sizes and setbacks). 604 Ms. Rhees advised that the Commission would be outfitted with cameras in the near 605 future to provide their identification of good examples of development that they would like 606 to see the zoning code encourage, whether inside or outside Roseville. 607 Mr. Lamb encouraged Commissioners to attend the February 4, 2010 introductory public 608 meeting. 609 Chair Doherty thanked Mr. Lamb and Ms. Rhees for their presentation; with Mr. Lamb 610 advising that they anticipated a workshop with the Planning Commission in March 2010. 611 7. Adjourn 612 Chair Doherty adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:23 p.m. 613