2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 5 and cross-referencing the various sections was an ongoing process. Mr. Paschke 197 noted, as an example, the reference on Page 4, Section 1004.04, C that made 198 such a reference; and further noted that staff recommended the current reference 199 format. Mr. Paschke advised that a permit was required for a majority of uses in 200 Roseville. 201 Further discussion ensued regarding the meaning of “permitted,” whether an 202 allowed use or conditional. Mr. Paschke clarified that if it was deemed a 203 permitted use, it was an allowed use under that district; but conditional uses 204 needed to move through the Conditional Use application process, which was 205 standard across land use considerations. 206 After further consideration, it was the consensus of members and staff that 207 additional language be included related to Conditional Use processes in Section 208 1004.03,b. 209 1004.03 – Neighborhood Business (NB) District (Numbering of Sections) 210 Mr. Paschke noted that this section should be identified as “Section 1004.04,” 211 and subsequent numbers adjusted accordingly. 212 Paragraph C, Dimensional Standards 213 Mr. Paschke advised that staff concurred that there is a need for additional 214 references related to storm water management requirements; however, he noted 215 that those requirements were located in separate and distinct areas of code as 216 indicated by the various area wetland management organizations and shoreland 217 management requirements. Mr. Paschke advised that the 30% maximum 218 impervious lot coverage in residential districts would also be addressed under 219 permissible storm water management techniques and included by reference, as 220 well as mitigation options for homeowners for their specific property. 221 Paragraph D – Frontage Requirements 222 Discussion included potential lot lines falling within designated trail areas, but 223 typically located in public rights-of-way; with Mr. Paschke noting that the City 224 Attorney had also commented and requested clarification related to setbacks and 225 addressing easements. 226 1004.04 – Community Business (CB) District, Paragraph D, Parking Placement 227 Following discussion, it was the consensus of staff and members that the same 228 standards related for parking be revised and applied to this section for 229 consistency with Paragraph F of the Regional Business parking requirements. 230 1004.06 – Community Mixed-Use (CMU) District 231 As requested, Mr. Paschke explained the ordinance requirements related to this 232 chapter and purpose of a “regulating map.” 233 Discussion included the rationale for a regulating map specific to this District that 234 would be drawn up by staff and developers setting design standards and layouts 235 for the entire District, when the District essentially consists of the Twin Lakes 236 Redevelopment District and is minimally developed to-date. 237 Mr. Paschke advised that the regulating map would replace the Planned Unit 238 Development (PUD) design or concept for mixed use areas currently used; and 239 that the rationale for promoting a map and associated text (“a plan”) articulating 240 exactly what is to happen on any given parcel in Twin Lakes would achieve a 241 more cohesive overall development. Mr. Paschke clarified that it was unknown, 242 at this time, who would actually development such a regulating map and text: 243 whether staff, a developer, or done in phases by the City. 244 Further discussion included the lack of previous exposure to the City of such a 245 regulating map; guidance of the Comprehensive Plan for form-based 246 development; impacts for developers for their parcel and those adjacent; with 247