2010-09-29_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 29, 2010 Page 12 Mr. Paschke clarified that often-repeated comments fielded by staff are related to 564 garage doors being the predominant façade for homes for aesthetic purpose; and 565 strongly encouraged Commissioners to consider what they wanted their 566 community to look like in the future, versus existing housing stock, and whether a 567 3-car garage as the predominant feature of a single-family home was preferred. 568 Public Comment 569 Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing, with no one appearing for or against. 570 MOTION 571 Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Doherty to RECOMMEND 572 TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the proposed draft language for 573 Sections 1003.05 and 1003.06, as amended in the staff report, striking and 574 ; as detailed in Section excluding language identified in blue highlighted ink 575 2.0 of the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 29, 576 2010 . 577 Ayes: 4 578 Nays: 3 (Gisselquist, Cook, Boerigter) 579 Motion carried. 580 f. PROJECT FILE 0017 581 Request by the Roseville Planning Division to adopt new regulations for 582 Title 10, City Code Zoning Regulations, pertaining to 583 INSTITUTIONALDISTRICTS 584 Due to the lateness of the hour, Chair Doherty led discussion on whether to defer 585 this item to a future meeting. 586 With all due respect, Mr. Paschke advised that, due to several special meetings 587 without achieving a quorum of members to conduct the meeting, the schedule 588 was even tighter than originally; and advised that this item was slated for a first 589 review by the City Council on their October 18, 2010 meeting docket. 590 Chair Doherty opened the Public Hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017. 591 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed proposed standards for this new 592 Institutional District and sought comments and recommendations for the text, as 593 detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 29, 594 2010. 595 Staff recommended approval of the DRAFT INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT 596 requirements as presented. 597 Member Gisselquist expressed his preference for articulation and 598 encouragement of flexibility for artistic flair for institutional, cultural and religious 599 uses, such as theaters and museums; and recognized the need to address 600 parking concerns in design standards; and questioned what other cities had done 601 for their institutional/cultural district design standards. 602 Member Boerigter opined that, under the design standards specified in Section 603 1006.02, churches and/or schools could not comply with or meet the proposed 604 design standards; and questioned if standards were necessary for Institutional 605 Districts since there was a limit to what had not already been developed; and 606 suggested how recent existing uses could have happened under the design 607 parameters proposed (e.g. Ramsey County Library; recent church construction). 608 Member Boerigter suggested that potential realistic institutional uses be 609 considered for the community and how to apply the proposed design standards 610 without code amendment, such as reviewing modern and/or typical schools to 611 determine those that made sense, and those not sufficiently vetted due to cutting 612 and pasting from other districts. 613