2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 13 Ms. McGehee verbally reviewed her written comments and spoke in support of a 598 previous petition with sixty-nine (69) signatures of residents delivered to the City 599 Council requesting lot division be done more gradually, and calculated based on 600 the size of contiguous lots, rather than based on minimum or maximum square 601 footage, similar to that used in the Cities of Bloomington and Edina. 602 Ms. McGehee questioned why there was any need to change the Residential 603 Zoning Code; and disagreed with staff’s response, and provided her perception 604 of the Metropolitan Council’s mandate and the City of Roseville’s current 605 adherence to meeting affordable housing requirements. 606 Ms. McGehee alleged that the post card notice mailed to residents was a gross 607 misrepresentation of the facts and opined that there was nothing in the current 608 Residential Zoning Code that was inconsistent with the updated Comprehensive 609 Plan. Ms. McGehee further opined that she found it interesting that City staff, in 610 less than two (2) months, could come up with a comprehensive zoning code 611 while a number of amendments to the existing code had taken fifty (50) years to 612 achieve. Ms. McGehee opined that the proposed zoning code was missing 613 consideration for neighborhood harmony and consistency, but was evident in the 614 existing zoning code; and opined that lots should only be divided in cases of 615 hardship or if in harmony and consistency with the current neighborhood, which 616 would serve to accommodate the concerns of Mr. Disney. Ms. McGehee 617 referenced the last sentence of Section 1012.B relating to grandfathered lots. Ms. 618 McGehee further referenced the Vista 2000 and Imagine Roseville 2025 619 community vision statements and the preference expressed for diversity in 620 housing choices, not uniformity, which was addressed in the current code, 621 including several large lot neighborhoods in the community. Ms. McGehee spoke 622 in opposition to reducing the minimum square footage of lots in Roseville as 623 proposed. 624 Ms. McGee also addressed apparent storm water management problems in 625 Roseville as addressed in the Metropolitan Council’s review of the City’s 626 Comprehensive Plan and proposed reduction goals, opining that that problem 627 would not be addressed by reducing lot sizes or side setbacks, while 628 simultaneously increasing impervious coverage allowances. Ms. McGehee 629 questioned where the green space and environmental protection would come 630 from; and opined that this proposed zoning was totally unnecessary and not 631 required by the Comprehensive Plan, nor did it fulfill Roseville’s goal for diverse 632 housing. Ms. McGehee opined that the City was in good shape as we are, with 633 only minor code tweaking necessary; and only those areas outdated or needing 634 unification needed to be addressed. Ms. McGehee opined that it was ridiculous 635 to attempt “postage stamp lots and straight streets” as proposed by staff during 636 their two month rewrite process. 637 Joe Dietz, 2195 Marion Road 638 Mr. Dietz reviewed the history of the lots in the Marion neighborhood as 639 addressed by previous speakers; and opined that the City was doing a disservice 640 by allowing subdivision of this property and removing trees. Mr. Dietz opined that 641 removing trees would create more noise from Highway 36 and change the feel of 642 the neighborhood. 643 Kim Melby, 2234 Laurie Road 644 Ms. Melby questioned if their neighborhood, since it was unique, could be zoned 645 a single-family, large lot district to maintain the larger lots. 646 Chair Doherty advised that the neighborhood could petition the City Council for 647 that; but, he noted that there may be other neighborhoods (e.g., Gluek Lane) that 648 were similar. 649