2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 7 Ms. Rhees advised that there were exceptions to height limitations for towers and 298 steeples, but that those would not be considered rooftop equipment and would 299 be addressed in the General Regulations of the ordinance similar the current 300 ordinance. 301 Table 1004.01 – Grocery Store and Related Goods 302 Member Boerigter questioned the definition of this use; with Mr. Paschke 303 responding that the definition section remains under development, and a specific 304 definition for this use would be articulated accordingly, as well as for general 305 retail and personal services. 306 Page 3, – Picture – 4-sided Building Design 307 Member Boerigter expressed confusion on the picture and how it indicated a 4- 308 sided building in relationship to the garage door placement. 309 Ms. Rhees responded that the picture was meant to illustrate a side elevation 310 and should be captioned as an example of garage door placement on the side 311 elevation, not exceeding 50% of the image; but duly noted that another 312 illustration may work better. 313 Page 7 – Dimensional Standards Chart 314 Member Boerigter noted the question mark related to the percentage of 315 improvement area; noting that the coverage was 75% for Neighborhood 316 Business (NB) zoning designation, and questioned if there was a difference for 317 groundwater coverage. 318 Mr. Paschke advised that staff was seeking comment from the Commission as to 319 their agreement or disagreement with that percentage as recommended by staff; 320 and advised that there were currently no impervious coverage limitations for 321 commercial areas other than those in place and for setback requirements. 322 Rainbow site on Larpenteur Avenue 323 Member Boerigter questioned under which district this recently-developed 324 property would fall with the proposed zoning code revisions; and conceptually, if 325 the application was presented today how the redevelopment may have looked. 326 Mr. Paschke opined that it was more Commercial than Regional Business; and 327 would have been subject to the requirements of the proposed zoning ordinance 328 once adopted; and reminded Commissioners that many building are 329 nonconforming, regardless of when built, but pre-existing buildings are not 330 judged against yet-to-be- adopted regulations. 331 Member Boerigter opined that the proposed design standards are too onerous, 332 and while the illustrations apply mainly to Mixed Use, the design standards were 333 applicable to many other uses, and cited several examples of existing buildings. 334 Mr. Paschke noted that these design standards were advocated by the 335 community in the Imagine Roseville 2025 visioning process and by the Steering 336 Committee making recommendations on the Comprehensive Plan update; and 337 further noted that a number of Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) approved to- 338 date and including heightened design standards had been a culmination of that 339 advocacy. 340 Mr. Paschke advised the illustrations were attempting to identify certain forms, 341 materials and designs, not meant to be the absolute. 342 Ms. Rhees suggested that the illustrations could be changed, added to or 343 deleted; and that they were meant to be illustrative, not regulatory. Ms. Rhees 344 suggested that the new illustrations provide examples of some new office 345 buildings in Roseville or the area with the same type of pedestrian-oriented 346 features and windows along the sidewalk. 347