2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 3 addition of a Mixed Use District, initially encompassing the Twin Lakes area, and 95 including both general and specific design/performance standards. 96 Public Comment 97 Tam McGehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane 98 Ms. McGehee provided written comments dated July 14, 2010 and entitled, 99 “Proposed Zoning Changes,” attached hereto and made a part thereof, related 100 to the overall proposed, with comments containing her perception of the 101 requirements of the Metropolitan Council, the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 102 and specific comments related to Residential Districts, as well as Commercial 103 and Mixed Use Districts. 104 Ms. McGehee requested a copy of Planning Commission Member Wozniak’s 105 comments, which staff had provided for the public in the rear of the Council 106 chambers. 107 Ms. McGehee opined that there had been little presented to-date or opportunities 108 provided for public comment; and further opined that when the open house had 109 been held on renaming districts, there was language included defining square 110 footage, which had been more palatable in assuring residents; however, she 111 noted that such language was no longer included. Ms. McGehee stated that 112 residents had clearly stated that they were not interested in any more retail 113 development in the community; and questioned how the proposed changes 114 furthered the goals stated by the Community. Ms. McGehee alleged that the 115 proposed rewrite actually created open season for development, signified by the 116 heated discussion at the June Planning Commission meeting by residential 117 property owners in the Har Mar Mall neighborhood. Ms. McGehee opined that it 118 was the desire of residents that there was an acknowledgement by the City that 119 commercial development in Roseville serve its citizens and not predominantly 120 those traveling through neighborhoods, and impacting the City’s emergency 121 services and infrastructure, in addition to other taxpayer-funded amenities. 122 Bob Venters, 1964 Fairview 123 Mr. Venters noted that he had only performed an initial review of the documents; 124 however, he expressed his concern about the proposed reduced minimum lot 125 sizes and detail for implementation and whether that would be retroactive. 126 Mr. Paschke noted that this discussion was related to Residential Districts and 127 should be addressed at that time. 128 As a brief point of clarification, Chair Doherty reviewed the history of 129 approximately 53% of the City’s existing residential lots that are non-conforming 130 because they fail to meet the existing minimum lot size requirements within the 131 City, and estimated at between 5-6,000 lots. Chair Doherty noted that that 132 noncompliance negatively impacted residents in attempts to expand on or 133 redevelop their homes and/or properties. Chair Doherty advised that the intent of 134 the reduced lot size to 9,500 square feet, and 75’ lot width would bring 135 approximately 93% of those nonconforming lots into conformity. 136 When asked by Mr. Venters of the potential impact to the community in 137 subdivision of lots, Mr. Paschke advised that there was only an estimated 138 seventy (70) residential lots that could be divided under the current subdivision 139 ordinance; and opined that by reducing the lot width requirements minimally, 140 there would be limited change in potential subdivisions from the existing 141 ordinance; and that any subdivisions would need to be heard at the Planning 142 Commission or City Council level for approval, once it was determined what 143 requirements would be applied for subdivisions, which would be part of the next 144 step in this rezoning process. 145