2010-04-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, April 7, 2010 Page 6 suggestions and related revisions were on the City’s website and modified 248 accordingly. 249 Commissioner Boerigter suggested that Table 103.02 on page 6, more clearly 250 define temporary uses (i.e., pods) with specific time frames, 251 Mr. Paschke advised that those specific standards or processes were normally 252 tied to other sections of code, as they would be in the revised code, and 253 temporary pods were usually tied to a building permit based on construction 254 and/or reconstruction of a home; but were specifically prohibited for long-term 255 storage on a property without an Interim Use permit. 256 For the benefit of the public, Chair Doherty requested that Mr. Paschke review 257 the proposed changes in dimensional lot standards being lowered to 9,500 258 square feet. 259 Mr. Paschke noted, as indicated on the City website, the rationale for proposing 260 the new lot standard and elimination of a depth requirement was based on staff 261 analysis concluding that the existing lot size standards were not representative of 262 the majority of lots in the community; with allowing for a minimum of 75’ wide lots 263 and a minimum of 9,500 square feet brought 93% of the City’s lots into 264 conformance with City Code, unlike today’s massive nonconformance of 52%, 265 based on 1959 zoning code adoption requirements. Mr. Paschke advised that 266 this would make it easier for property owners to have their property in 267 conformance and not requiring a variance; as well as accommodating title 268 searches and resale of those properties currently requiring an explanation for 269 their non compliance or a variance before pending sales 270 Chair Doherty requested that Section 1003.09 provide additional and alternative 271 home grouping illustrations (page 7-8) rather than just the one current example. 272 Commercial 273 Commissioner Boerigter requested that the upcoming Open House provide 274 clarification on what was allowed for Neighborhood Business based on proposed 275 design standards. 276 Commissioner Boerigter discussed his concerns related to ideal versus practical 277 parking mandates on lots if a building was moved closer to the front in areas of 278 redevelopment versus redevelopment within an established area with smaller 279 parcels; location of exits for the building (front and rear doors for retail 280 establishments) in relation to one or two checkout areas. 281 Mr. Paschke recognized the concerns of Commissioner Boerigter; however, 282 noted staff’s attempts to comply with the goals and aspirations of the adopted 283 Comprehensive Plan and how it spoke to the essence of a commercial district, 284 and staff’s support of a zoning code that complied with that Plan, as well as 285 comments of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process, with both 286 of those products guiding the zoning code rewrite and allowing for additional 287 flexibility. 288 Commissioner Boerigter noted a previous land use application to develop a 289 property at Lexington and B by pushing the building to the front of the property 290 and locating property in the rear, and how that proposal was negatively received. 291 Commissioner Gisselquist, in Section 1004.06 (Community Mixed Use), noted 292 that, in the attempt to get away from issuing PUD’s, it appeared that another 293 district was being created and guided by a regulating map for each. In Section 294 1004.02, Commissioner Gisselquist expressed some concerns about keeping 295 things at the front and mandating two entrances, when the back entry was 296 usually used for deliveries, and may require a business to hire more personnel or 297 create security concerns. Also, in Section “c,” Commissioner Gisselquist 298