2010-03-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 03, 2010 Page 8 354 Commissioner Gisselquist noted that it was subjective, based on how many people in the 355 family needed to work to sustain a family, depending on the size of that family unit. 356 Commissioner Wozniak questioned why the City should provide financial support for 357 creation of a Chamber of Commerce (Strategy A.2.A.6.a), rather than allowing the free 358 market to work. 359 Mr. Trudgeon advised that this was more of a policy perspective on the role of 360 government, with many of the Action Steps identified as broader goals in support of 361 businesses, family-sustaining jobs, and other items to encourage those broader goals to 362 be achieved. Mr. Trudgeon noted that Roseville was unique in the amount of employment 363 options available in the community versus the marketing required of many communities 364 to incent businesses and/or residents to move into the community, with a minimum of 365 vacant buildings and the market place handling that turnover, even during the difficult 366 economic conditions. Mr. Trudgeon noted that Roseville did not have an active 367 recruitment program, with a minimal number of areas that could receive additional focus 368 (e.g., biotech) and was part of a more Economic Development-focused promotion; with 369 additional emphasis perhaps appropriate to nurture existing businesses for their health, 370 growth and expansion. Mr. Trudgeon noted that a number of items in the “not yet” 371 category were there due to a lack of resources, or lack of clear policy direction from the 372 City Council at this time. 373 Commissioners were encouraged to provide their individual input to staff to be compiled 374 for the City Council. 375 b) Zoning Code Rewrite – City Planner to present the Residential Districts Drafts and 376 Cuningham Group to introduce the Business Districts outline. 377 City Planner Thomas Paschke provided reviewed the proposed Residential District Code 378 and its various components, requesting specific comments and direction on the content 379 and details contained in the proposed section, rather than wordsmithing. Mr. Paschke 380 noted that Consultants Suzanne Rhees and Michael Lamb were also present at tonight’s 381 meeting. 382 Mr. Paschke provided an update on the process to-date from staff’s perspective; 383 reviewed feedback from the recently-held public open house, with seven (7) residents 384 attending throughout the two (2) hour event and those general questions or concerns 385 raised most specifically related to density, large lots or the potential to create a large lot 386 district, accessory structures, and lot splits; announced the upcoming second community 387 open house scheduled for March 25, 2010 and the specific discussion points anticipated 388 at that open house centering on residential districts, with a more defined outline providing 389 and pertaining to business districts. 390 Mr. Paschke advised that, from staff’s perspective, business district zoning designations 391 had been drafted, and also an outline or format of the overall document and its 392 organization. 393 Residential Districts 394 Mr. Paschke reviewed the highlights of the residential district, noting that staff and the 395 consultants would then take generalized comments from the Commissioners and refine 396 the drafts to move forward with the intent of a document for the upcoming open house. 397 Discussion items and clarifications included the number of accessory structures, 398 including a garden shed and overall maximum lot square footages; “up to” total allowable 399 square footage of accessory structures at 1,008 square feet; whether the current 400 language was ambiguous and needed further clarification, possibly by adding the 401 cumulative total size to the chart; maximum floor area per lot; exterior dimension of a 402 home’s footprint related to accessory structures (current Section 1004.015) not 403 exceeding 85% of exterior footprint of principal structure; Section 1003.02a.2 related to 404 larger garages and matching pitched roofs or architectural elements for design aesthetics 405 and based on minimal impacts for adjacent properties; and performance standards