PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda

1. Call to Order at 6:30 p.m. 2. Roll Call & Introduction PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting Agenda Wednesday, August 7, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. Roseville City Hall Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive 3. Review of Minutes: July 10, 2013 regular meeting minutes 4. Communications and Recognitions a. From the public: Public comment pertaining to land use issues not on this agenda b. From the Commission or staff 5. Public Hearing Planning File 13-010: Request by Hand In Hand Christian Montessori, with property owner Church of Corpus Christi, for approval a temporary classroom structure as an interim use at 2131 Fairview Avenue 6. Other Business: Review a proposed City acquisition of land adjacent to Langton Lake Park 7. Adjourn Future Meetings: Planning Commission & Variance Board (tentative): September 4 & October 2 City Council: August 12, 19, 26 & Sept. 9, 16, 23 HRA: August 20 & Sept. 17

Planning Commission Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive Draft Minutes - Wednesday, July 10, 2013 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 1. Call to Order Chair Gisselquist called to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission meeting at approximately 6:30 p.m. and reviewed the role and purpose of the Planning Commission. 2. Roll Call & Introduction At the request of Chair Gisselquist, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. Members Present: Chair John Gisselquist; and Commissioners James Daire; Michael Boguszewski; David Stellmach; Shannon Cunningham; and Robert Murphy Members Excused: Commissioner Jerald Olsen (resigned) Staff Present: City Planner Thomas Paschke; Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd 4. Review of Minutes June 5, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes MOTION Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to approve the June 5, 2013 meeting minutes as presented. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. 4. Communications and Recognitions a. From the Public (Public Comment on items not on the agenda) No one appeared to speak at this time. b. From the Commission or Staff None. 5. Public Hearings Chair Gisselquist reviewed the protocol for Public Hearings and subsequent process. a. PLANNING FILE 13-008 Request by Kath Oil for an EASEMENT VACATION to vacate an existing utility and drainage easement at 2645 Snelling Avenue and to re-establish an easement as a component of the site redevelopment and sanitary sewer relocation Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 13-008 at 6:34 p.m. City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request of Kath Oil for vacation of a portion of the existing sanitary sewer easement that crosses current Marathon gas station parcel in order to redevelop the site in to a new Holiday Gas Station as detailed in the staff report dated July 10, 2013. Mr. Paschke advised that he had spoken with Kath s consulting engineer by phone earlier today, who would not be available to attend tonight s meeting. Anticipating no outstanding issues, Mr. Paschke advised that no other representatives from Kath were present either. Member Daire confirmed the location of the vacation easement farthest north on the property; and sewer line being gravity fed to the best of Mr. Paschke s knowledge. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 6:40 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. MOTION Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Stellmach to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the VACATION of the sanitary sewer easement at 2645 Snelling Avenue as described on Easement Vacation Survey document dated June

45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 2 6, 2013 (Attachment C); based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Council action related to this action is anticipated at their July 22, 2013 meeting. b. PROJECT FILE 0017 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT to Title 11, Subdivision Ordinance, to create requirements for an open house for land divisions of four (4) or greater lots or parcels Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at 6:42 p.m. City Planner Paschke reviewed the request of the Planning Division seeking a text amendment to Section 1102.01 (Procedure) of the Subdivision Chapter of Roseville City Code, creating language requiring a Developer Open House prior to submittal of land divisions of four (4) or greater lots or parcels. Mr. Paschke advised that this issue had come forward at the direction of the City Council as a result of discussions and resident concerns for a recent redevelopment and lot split proposal for Josephine Heights Preliminary Plat approval. Member Boguszewski questioned the intent for requiring that the open house be held at a public location versus a private residence; with Mr. Paschke responding that this was also at the direction of the City Council for holding the meetings in public locations; with staff s support of that direction, since open houses at the specific development site were not always feasible. Chair Gisselquist spoke in support of holding the meetings at a public location to ensure neutral territory; with Member Murphy concurring, and adding that this also addressed any ADA or environmental issues for those members of the public wishing to attend, with the majority of public facilities meeting those requirements. Discussion ensued regarding Sections B.4 and 5 regarding the developer s submittal of an open house summary; if there should be more specificity to determine the notice area rather than just addressing property owners in the vicinity of a development project, even though notice areas are established elsewhere in code (Section 1008) to avoid any confusion and/or ambiguities and to provide everyone in the notice area to have a deciding voice. Further discussion included Section 5.E.2 and the mechanism for the Planning Commission s report (e.g. meeting minutes and/or staff report and attachments); future additional pending revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance beyond this addition, hopefully coming before the Commission before year-end; City Council directive for this open house to be triggered with four (4) or more parcels; and clarification of new or revised section existing code, erroneously provided in this iteration of the staff report. Member Boguszewski asked staff to consider how best to edit Section 5.E.2 to ensure that the Commission s decision will be documented prior to City Council action (e.g. 10 days from the public hearing). Member Daire requested staff s rationale for language in Section B.2 (Timing) of not more than 15-45 days Mr. Paschke advised the intent was to ensure the open house was held not too far in advance of the Planning Commission s Public Hearing, but not immediately before it as well to allow the public and developer to respond to or mitigate any concerns raised at the open house. Member Daire suggested revising proposed language to read: not less than fifteen (15) days or more than forty-five (45) days ; with staff and Commissioner consensus.

95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 3 Member Daire suggested that Section B.5. (Summary Submission) be revised to include a requirement that a list of names and associated addresses be part of that submission, provided via a sign-up sheet at the open house to ensure comments from those with specific concerns within the notification area would be heard. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:02 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. MOTION Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the TEXT AMENDMENT to Section 1011.02, Procedures, of the Subdivisions Chapter of Roseville City Code, as provided in Section 5 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013; amended as follows: Section B.2 (Timing) to read not less than fifteen (15) or more than forty-five (45) days Member Boguszewski spoke in support of a list and associated addresses as recommended by Member Daire; however, he recognized that those attending could not be forced to sign-up. If the Commission chose to include that recommendation as an amendment to the motion, Member Boguszewski suggested that the submittal summary include a voluntary list of names and associated addresses. Member Murphy stated that he initially thought that sounded like a good idea; however, in his review of the last sentence in that section, citizens were welcome to submit their own summary of the meeting highlighting concerns/issues and any mitigations/resolutions. Member Murphy advised that his concern was whether the open house summary report was an accurate portrayal of the comments versus the perception of the host of the open house; and opined that the last sentence encouraging citizen submittal would accomplish the same goal as recommended by Member Daire, while allowing them to remain unedited by the host. Member Daire opined that a citizen would be able under any circumstances to reflect his views and understanding of a particular situation; however, by requiring the developer to hold the open house and be responsible to report the results and to document responses should remain a responsibility of the developer or open house host. Member Daire questioned how the City could guarantee that a citizen could submit a dissenting view of the meeting summary if they hadn t seen the summary; and opined that his understanding of the City Council s intent was to expose the neighborhood to the nature of the development prior to any Public Hearing in advance and prior to their notice by staff of the Public Hearing for initial review of the preliminary plat at the Planning Commission level. Member Daire further opined that this would ensure citizens weren t caught broadsided by a development proposal without sufficient research and reaction time for a response with their particular concerns; and thereby adding another layer of public information to field reactions prior to the formal Public Hearing; and allowing the developer and neighborhood to hash out any differences that may exist. Member Daire referenced the recent Dale Street Project informational meetings hosted by the City s Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA) as an wonderful example that demonstrated how much can be gained by sharing information transparently prior to formal action and allowing a developer to adjust his proposal to provide more confidence to the neighborhood that their concerns are being listed to and/or mitigated. When suggesting that names and addressed of those attending should be included as part of the submittal, Member Daire advised that his intent was provide proof that the developer had notified the appropriate stakeholders, but also to alert the Planning Commission of any potential difficulties that may arise before or as part of the Public Hearing. Mr. Paschke advised that the City Council was directing the developer to provide staff with the summary report of any issues/concerns, not necessarily specific persons, also allowing staff and ultimately the Commission and City Council to be cognizant of any issues that may have been inadvertently missed or not addressed previously. Mr. Paschke noted that this didn t necessitate having names or addresses; even though the

148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 4 City Council would still be interested in and encourage citizens to provide their recollection of any discussion and/or mitigation. Mr. Paschke cautioned that any meeting summary submitted to staff by the developer and testimony given at the Public Hearing may not always be consistent; however, he noted that any opportunity for a citizen to feel their voice was being heard should be encouraged; as well as those residents feeling that there were lingering concerns or issues bringing them to the attention of staff at any time during the process for a response or resolution. Mr. Paschke noted that, of course, staff was required to make recommendations to the Commission and City Council based on the current Zoning Ordinance, and could not always resolve citizen concerns, the ultimate goal would be for staff and the designer or developer to tweak a proposal to address citizen concerns. Mr. Paschke suggested, regarding the list of names and addresses, would be to make a statement at the end of Section 5.B (Submission) to the effect that a sign-in sheet be kept by the host of the open house and submitted to City staff to show who attended; since staff was not always aware of who or how many attended open houses; and sometimes the summary report was vague and only provided a general discussion or topics covered. In taking a cue from the Dale Street Project s open houses and their sign-up sheet that included a category for addresses and phone numbers, Member Daire suggested something similar; recognizing that there was no mandate to sign in. Chair Gisselquist concurred that a sign-up sheet would be a good addition, as long as it remained voluntary. At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke reviewed the process for staff providing the developer with the same list of property for notification of a developer as that used by staff for the formal Public Hearing notice. At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd advised that any monitoring of that list is somewhat informal, but noted that the CDD and Commission were included on those notice lists. AMENDMENT TO ORIGINAL MOTION Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy and amendment to the motion as follows: Section B.5 (Summary) A voluntary sign-in sheet for names/addresses shall be provided at the open house and included as part of the submission to staff with a summary of the open house. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the TEXT AMENDMENT to Section 1011.02, Procedures, of the Subdivisions Chapter of Roseville City Code, as provided in Section 5 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013; amended as follows: Section B.2 (Timing) amended to read not less than fifteen (15) or more than forty-five (45 days Section B.5 (Summary/Submission) amended to include the statement: A voluntary sign-in sheet for names/addresses shall be provided at the open house and included as part of the submission to staff with a summary of the open house. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Council action related to this action is anticipated at their July 22, 2013 meeting.

198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 5 c. PROJECT FILE 13-0017 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS to Section 1004.05, One- and Two-Family Design Standards regarding regulation of forward-facing garage doors Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at approximately 7:18 p.m. City Planner Paschke referenced the staff report containing more detailed information and goals and policies supporting house-prominent design predicated by vision statements from the Imagine Roseville 2025 and Roseville 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, as requested at the June 2013 meeting of the Commission. Mr. Paschke noted that the City s Planning Staff and Consultants had developed design standards to slightly modify design for one- and two-family homes to avoid attached garages being the most prominent feature of a home s façade in the effort to create a perception of a more walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. While acknowledging those past discussions, Mr. Paschke, and specifically Member Daire s proposal from the previous meeting, he advised that staff had investigated it further, but concluded that that in practical application the proposal would be difficult to implement; and advised that staff could therefore not support it at this point. Mr. Paschke concluded by advising that staff continued to support and recommend their original three (3) amendments for City Code specific to this issue, with a minor modification to the third point to clarify concerns of the commission for homes with attached garages setback significantly from the front property line. Mr. Paschke opined that inserting the Daire proposal and eliminating the minimum 5 setback from the front of the home as a design feature would essentially serve to defeat the entire intent of that section of code, at least from his perspective. Member Boguszewski commended staff on their thorough review of Member Daire s proposal, even though that was not their recommendation. Member Boguszewski opined that the staff report did a good job of capturing a many-layered discussion and fairly captured Member Daire s comments on homes being constructed similar to others already existing in the neighborhood. Since he had not been present during the Imagine Roseville 2025 or Comprehensive Plan meetings and their subsequent adoption, Member Daire questioned if there had been any discussion or comments about what was included specific to this design standard, as while they may be helpful goals, he found nothing during his personal review of the documents that included any statements recommending a 5 setback for a garage from the main residential structure. Member Daire recognized that there may have been some discussion, but asked staff if there were any specifics regarding the 5 setback; and questioned if staff had attended those community meetings. Mr. Daire asked Mr. Paschke specifically if he recalled any meetings where actual garage placement was indicated to enhance neighborhood image, walkability or to provide community gathering places. Mr. Paschke advised that City staff was involved to some degree in some, but not all of the meetings, but both in-house staff and planning consultants had been involved in the brainstorming and strategy discussions, resulting in the current zoning code based on that community visioning and comprehensive plan guidance. Mr. Paschke further advised that without referencing and researching those meeting minutes further, he would be unable to respond to the specifics discussed. However, Mr. Paschke noted that the discussions, as well as both documents, were very broad and intentionally generic enough to allow for more flexibility in design standards, while meeting the vision for a future Roseville to encourage pedestrian versus vehicle transportation; improve neighborhood images from the 1959 to-date single-family home design of snout houses; and seek to facilitate community gathering place. Mr. Paschke advised that, as a typical nomenclature of the planning field, specifics could or should not always be addressed that could stifle individuality, while maintaining a future vision for which the community could strive. Mr. Paschke noted that City Code, Section 1004.05A for those one- and two-

252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 6 family design standards attempted to allow for that new vision. Mr. Paschke admitted that he could not say that the 5 setback for attached garages specifically got to the heart of that attempt to avoid snout houses, which were represented by a vast majority of existing homes in Roseville that was the intent of those design standards. Based on his planning career for the City of Minneapolis, Member Daire advised that he was well aware of the planning realm, and opined that this then was apparently staff s extrapolation based on their sense of those meetings. Mr. Paschke responded that it may not even be a sense of those discussions; however, it was the interpretation of staff and planning consultants through their review of a number of different documents and future community aspirations that went into creating a zoning ordinance that captured the essence of those broader visioning documents and guides. Mr. Paschke admitted that other options may be available, but in this case, this was the code that had been subsequently adopted by the City Council, incorporating those design guidelines for what a future Roseville could look like. Mr. Paschke noted that there appeared to be only a few voicing opposition to those design standards through the many open houses (estimated at 10-15) and/or Public Hearings related to residential standards. Mr. Paschke further noted that any concerns were apparently not sufficient in a great enough magnitude for the City Council not to adopt the provisions, even though there may be some concerns being raised now with the current Planning Commissioners or City Council members. Mr. Paschke advised hat staff was not finding a concern in the development community either, since they seemed more than willing to adapt their designs to meet the requirements. Chair Gisselquist noted that a lot of the discussions during the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process was general in nature, and would be hard to put into play in creating a zoning code. Chair Gisselquist noted that the discussions focused on livable communities, more walkable neighborhoods, less emphasis on vehicular traffic and more on pedestrians. Chair Gisselquist noted that staff and hired planning consultants had then been tasked with taking those general aspirations and crafting them into a realistic code; with the thought process among the planning community that with the residential portion of a home versus the garage more predominant on the structure, it would encourage those aspirations, whether or not someone specifically addressed a 5 attached garage setback at one of the meetings. Chair Gisselquist opined that it was not water over the dam, and the current design standards incorporated the essence of those discussions. Member Cunningham opined that, while the document references evidence to support that homes designed with garages dominating the front façade didn t create that perception, there was also not a lot of compelling evidence to support that those residences didn t support a healthier, walkable neighborhood. Member Cunningham questioned if it really made a neighborhood less walkable if a garage was on the front of a home. However, in her personal research of design standards for one- and two-family homes, Member Cunningham advised that the State of Oregon had done extensive research on that, and after her review of expert testimony, they had seemed to legitimately prove that snout houses actually discouraged pedestrian traffic. Based on her further research, Member Cunningham advised that she was now more comfortable in retaining the 5 setback, even though she had found the information provided by staff from the Imagine Roseville 2025 and 2030 Comprehensive Plan update helpful, it was somewhat vague. Member Boguszewski reiterated his theory from previous meetings and his preference to allow property owners to do what they wished to do on their private property as long as it didn t harm the neighborhood or community. Member Boguszewski opined that too large of a building mass or a disproportionately sized building could harm the character of a neighborhood; however, he also recognized that those interpretations could be either subjective or objective. Member Boguszewski suggested that there were three (3) options for the Commission to consider related to these design standards:

305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 7 1) Eliminate the 5 setback provision entirely (strike item 2- lines 81 and 82 of the staff report - under City Code Section 1004.05A for One- and Two-Family Design Standards); OR 2) Retain the 5 setback, but add in the three (3) sub-bullet points recommended by staff (lines 117-121 of the staff report); or 3) Add the Daire amendment (lines 91-93 of the staff report) for any new construction for one- and two-family homes to be setback at an average in keeping with the homes on either side of the new home. Member Boguszewski advised that, in an effort to be fair, he considered the extremes that might occur with any of those options, as well as re-reviewing the neighborhoods he d previously travelled. Member Boguszewski advised that after further reviewing the options and intent of the current design standards, he found himself more comfortable with supporting the three recommendations of staff (lines 117-121) that would keep a residential feel and allow room for landscaping in front of a home as well. Member Boguszewski advised that he had not initially realized that to eliminate the existing 5 setback would open up the code for abuse. Member Boguszewski stated that he would support the proposal as recommended by staff, including the 50 waiver without getting into additional logistical problems of adopting the Daire proposal, which essentially achieved the same goal. Member Daire opined that it appeared that this particular item and the philosophy behind it had been discussed a lot; however, he referenced the June 5, 2013 meeting minutes where Mr. Paschke had supported the role of the Planning Commission to nitpick things being considered as a policy of the community. Therefore, at the risk of being nitpicky, Member Daire pointed out a number of inconsistencies in staff s proposal that needed to be addressed; and outlined them as follows. 1) The statement (lines 106-107) about regulating garage doors versus garages themselves. Member Daire referenced line 108 related to garages forward of a home needing to be in conformance with code (line 108); noting that most references in zoning code modifications related to garages, not garage doors. Member Daire noted that if a garage was side-loaded, it would affect it technically, but to some extent, either the comment on lines 106-108 should be amended as it affected the garage itself; or any wording of garages versus garage doors needed revised for consistency. 2) Member Daire advised that he had tracked most of the homes provided by staff through aerial photographs attached to the staff report; and noted that the first plat was extremely interested, but questioned if staff had intended it as a good or bad example of how code would affect it. Member Daire noted that the setback was 4, not 5 and it was a corner lot. When viewed from the home numbered 2231 if viewed from Lexington Avenue, Member Daire noted that it provided a side view of the garage, while if viewed from Laurie Road, the whole façade was basically garage and garage door; making it unclear to him how that particular house would be treated on a corner lot. 3) While noting that staff had made an assertion of which he was skeptical, that most Roseville homes have a garage setback from the line of the main structure, Member Daire advised that in his review of only plates 1 and 2, he found that was indeed true and needed to adjust that skepticism. However, Member Daire did note that most homes with a slight setback of the garage from the residential portion were more in the nature of 3-4 versus 5 creating nonconforming issues and placing owners in the position of being responsible to address it as it related to the current zoning code. With respect to garage doors, Mr. Paschke responded that the particular section of code related to garage doors, not garages; and the only proposal related to the structure should be the first one addressing architectural details. Mr. Paschke advised that the

357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 8 code was all predicated on the door, not the garage itself; and if side-loaded, it didn t need to meet that particular requirement. Regarding Plate #1, Mr. Paschke advised that if the home was addressed off Lexington Avenue, it would be the front of the home, so the side yard was where the garage was facing. If looking at the front of the home, Mr. Paschke noted that all you see is house on the side of the garage, so it was in compliance. However, if the address is off Laurie Road to the south, Mr. Paschke noted that then all you would see is garage and the home would not be compliant. With respect to nonconformities, Mr. Paschke clarified that in December of 2010 when the Roseville City Council adopted its new Zoning Code and Map, it made almost every single existing property in Roseville nonconforming. Mr. Paschke noted that, while regulations frequently or infrequently change, only new construction or major modifications over a certain percentage would trigger an existing property needing to be brought into conformity; but would not be applicable to minor modifications. Mr. Paschke also noted that the City did not have any sunset clause in its zoning code to require that a property become compliance without one of those triggers; and he was not personally aware of any municipality that had such a requirement. Mr. Paschke opined that, whether minor amendments or broad changes to a city code, it would always trigger someone to be out of compliance, since the updates were reflecting updated requirements or desires of a city to change something, whatever that may be. Mr. Paschke noted that the result was that many homes encroach into that area today, but were not impacted if there was no trigger as noted above, with the property continuing as a legal, nonconforming use in perpetuity. In response to Member Boguszewski, whose own home is nonconforming, Mr. Paschke reviewed the type of major improvements that could trigger requiring it to be brought into compliance; such as if the home was raised, the new construction would need to meet current code. Mr. Paschke advised that the key was that City Code was predicated by State law, but if you didn t replace the existing home on the exact footprint of the former home, you would need to meet all the requirements of the new zoning code; however, if a similar design was built on the same footprint, if may not meet all the requirements of the current code, depending on the provisions of the State s nonconforming laws. With confirmation of his comments by Mr. Paschke, Member Boguszewski opined that the intent of this code was to spur the aesthetic improvement of a neighborhood incrementally more in line with the community s visioning documents. If that is the intent, Member Boguszewski spoke in opposition to Member Daire s proposed amendment to eliminate the existing 5 setback requirement from design standards; since it would leave everything in the same style it is now and not move the community in the direction interpreted from those community visioning documents. With staff s revision of the third bullet point (lines 117-121), Member Stellmach advised that this addressed his previous concerns. However, Member Stellmach noted his continued lack of clarity with the other two bullet points for staff recommendations (lines 117-118) and whether that meant that any garage using raised panels didn t have to meet the setback requirement or that garages setback 50 didn t need to meet the 5 setback or had to meet design standards. Mr. Paschke responded that the latter was the intent, that homes with attached garages setback 50 or more from the front property line did not need to have the garage setback of 5, but must meet all other requirements of Section 1004.05A. Further discussion included whether line 119 should remain at 50 and whether it should specify from the property line or the street, noting that curb lines could fluctuate depending on what part of the city you were in or width of the street; with some having a 10-12 boulevard from the street to the property line, while others may be as low as 8. Members noted that the intent was to improve walkability; questioned how that could impact properties located on curves;

410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 9 Associate Planner Lloyd noted that typically setbacks are measured from property lines, but in cases like this when the pedestrian realm was the main concern and how architectural detail adjacent to that affected that realm, it may make sense to apply distance with respect to the street, even though there are not sidewalks throughout the entire City yet. Mr. Lloyd opined that reference that distance of where the garage door is doesn t matter anymore from the street from a pedestrian perspective, and in some places where a boulevard may be 20 or more, enforcing further setbacks from the property line got even further from the pedestrian realm. Mr. Lloyd opined that it made sense to consider the setback from the curb; however, opined that if that was to be the starting point it should remain 50. Mr. Lloyd suggested that if language was to be revised, that it says street edge, in cases where there may be no curb line. Member Boguszewski noted that if typical boulevards are 10-15, the setback could be defined at 60-65 from the street. Member Boguszewski concurred with the concept of the pedestrian realm and making sure the structure was far enough from where that began. Member Murphy questioned if there was any advantage to saying street or property line in situations where a street may get widened; opining that he d rather decrease the footage and retain the reference to property line. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. MOTION Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to the City Council retention of current design standards for single- and two-family homes (Section 1004.05A) with APPROVAL of ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS as detailed in Section 5 of the staff dated July 10, 2013 (lines 117-121) providing options to provide additional flexibility for those design standards; with one amendment as follows: Revise the attached garage setback from fifty feet (50 ) to forty feet (40 ) in line 119 of the staff report. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Council action related to this action is anticipated at an August of 2013 meeting. d. PROJECT FILE 13-0017 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of a ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS to Section 1004.02 (Residential Accessory Buildings) regarding design requirements and performance standards Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at 7:56 p.m. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request by the Planning Division to reintroduce the height restriction for accessory structures contained in previous iterations of the zoning code, but unintentionally omitted from the 2012 zoning update. As detailed in the July 10, 2013 staff report (Section 4.3), Mr. Lloyd opined that such a limitation remained worthwhile; with the proposed text changes detailed in Section 5.0 of the staff report and corresponding Table 1004-1 in Section 1004.02 (Accessory Buildings) and footnotes as highlighted. At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd noted that this particular section of code specifically addressed residential accessory buildings used for storage, and would not affect a child s tree house or a pergola on the property. In the event of a low-lying rambler, Member Daire questioned if there was any recourse for an owner if the width of the garage and matching the roof slope to the existing structure brought the peak above the average roofline peak of the main structure.

459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 10 Mr. Lloyd responded that one recourse would be the variance process; however, without a specific application before him, he advised that his initial thought was if the garage footprint was actually similar to that described by Member Daire, it would already be larger than the principle structure and therefore exceed other code provisions. At the request of Member Daire as to whether an attached garage was technically considered an accessory building, Mr. Lloyd responded that, since the principle use was the dwelling unit itself, accessory to that were parking, and storage; and for this purpose, a detached garage was considered an accessory building. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 8:03 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. MOTION Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL OF ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated July 10, 2013. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Council action related to this action is anticipated at their August 12, 2013 meeting. 6. OTHER BUSINESS Discuss creation of a nonconforming use permit process to simplify the continued use of properties which were significantly rezoned (e.g. from Industrial to High Density Residential) in 2010 but that have functional facilities and are not ready to be redeveloped consistent with the new zoning requirements Staff Overview Associate Planner Lloyd provided an overview of issues prompting this discussion, as detailed in the staff report. Mr. Lloyd provided various examples along County Road C and in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area of properties having previously functioned as industrial properties, and as tenants move out, increasing difficulties of the property owner to find a use for the property allowing for reasonable income from the property under current City Code. MR. Lloyd noted that previous uses under the old zoning code would have made some uses no longer available if the vacancy exceeded one (1) year per state statute regarding nonconforming uses. Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to allow property owners an interim and reasonable allowance under conditioned permitting that would allow them to revert to their previous use under former zoning code requirements, until the real estate market improved for the property or area to begin to develop under guidance of its new zoning code and comprehensive plan designation. Otherwise, Mr. Lloyd noted that the property owner was stymied with no available legal use for the property in the interim, while still paying taxes but having no rental income from the parcel. A very local example provided by Mr. Lloyd was the Woof Room across from the Skating Center/Oval complex along County Road C, operating under an Interim Use Permit, and anticipating moving to another location in October of 2013. Mr. Lloyd advised that this left the building owner without a tenant, and limited options under current permitted uses, since any previous industrial use has been long-gone, and allowing only two (2) options for re-use by changing the Comprehensive Plan designation and Zoning Code to Light Industrial, which no longer seemed appropriate, or to allow another use through a conditioned Interim Use Permit, which may have some value, as long as the same open house requirement and subsequent Planning Commission and City Council approval was followed. Mr. Lloyd noted that the problem often encountered with an Interim Use Permit was that it was limited to a finite time with optional renewals, but may not facilitate a user interested in more long-term use or requiring substantial rehabilitation of the lease space to accommodate its function. Mr. Lloyd clarified that there is no requested action at this time, but that the intent was to seek feedback from the Commission on whether they were interested in pursuing any accommodation of nonconforming uses in response short-term for property owners facing new vacancies or

511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 11 tenants seeking space to lease in a timely fashion. Mr. Lloyd noted that another option would be for a less formal approval process for short-term or interim uses approved through the administrative process versus the longer, more formal public hearing process before the Commission and/or City Council. Mr. Lloyd noted that this was another discussion point, while seeking to still alert and involve adjacent property owners so they fully understood the property situation and had an opportunity to comment on any proposed use. Discussion At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd clarified that the concept behind creation of a nonconforming use permit, was more specific to accommodating a timeframe for a property owner and/or tenant versus addressing current economic and market issues for property owners. At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Lloyd also reviewed provisions of State Statute specific to the one (1) year restriction for status as a legal, nonconforming use. Discussion ensued regarding the premise of overlooking current zoning code by reverting to the prior code and permitted uses consistent with the prior zoning thereby broadening the category of uses available for a given property; and anticipated fees applied to any such application to cover the cost of business, advertising and any other processing costs for the City. Member Daire questioned if an appropriate interpretation of this proposed permit would be that if a suitable tenant/use would be permitted by the former zoning code since it was now nonconforming without the proposed permit process. Member Daire opined that this may be interpreted that the City had created a situation where its current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code removed a former legal and conforming use, making it nonconforming with a oneyear limit on any vacancies to retain that nonconforming use, unless the property owner was allowed a time extension through such a proposed permit to allow more time for a tenant search. Member Daire suggested that, under the City s current Zoning Code, by allowing the City to prohibit certain uses or stipulate some uses were nonconforming, it may serve to as a taking without due process. Without having additional information or case law available for this decisionmaking, Member Daire opined that he was reluctant to consider it further without having that minimal due diligence available. Mr. Lloyd questioned if it was appropriate to suggest that the current zoning code reference the old zoning code and remains legal; however, he noted that there did seem to be a need for some process when something was not currently allowed that could be allowed short-term until the market prompted redevelopment to occur. City Planner Paschke questioned if it was necessary to spend significant time researching case law, since the State Legislature dictated land use; with nonconforming parcels required to meet those state mandates, which used to be only six (6) months for a vacant use, but expanded to one (1) year about ten (10) years ago. If the City changed its rules or regulations, Mr. Paschke advised that the legislature determine nonconformities, and once crated through the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, those rules dictate that once the property is unoccupied for more than 365 days or one (1) year, any future use needs to be conforming. Mr. Paschke advised that this was the whole purpose of having a municipality s Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code consistent roe those areas that a city was seeking to recreate over the course of time, such as transforming an area of Twin Lakes from Industrial to High Density Residential use. Mr. Paschke opined that there had to be a trigger mechanism to force conformity, thus the legislature s creation of those rules. However, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was working to establish a process to allow a public hearing or other way to allow certain sites, not currently at a stage for redevelopment, to continue operating rather than remaining vacant in some fashion. Mr. Paschke noted that there were few ways to accomplish this, but noted that some cities had provided some provisions, similar to an extended Interim Use Permit, and addressing the historical nature of properties versus their interim use. Mr. Paschke restated his opposition in needing to dig through case law to determine those capabilities. While recognizing Mr. Paschke s perspective, Member Daire opined that this appeared to be a way to extend the investment or viability of an investment in a particular, nonconforming property

564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 12 so it can be considered viable by getting around state law. Member Daire further opined that this would be an appealing option for a developer or property owner if one consequence of the proposed permit process allowed extension of the time period to find a tenant and get around the one (1) year timeframe for nonconforming uses. If that was the case, Member Daire advised that he wasn t sure if this didn t create legal questions of a different nature. On an unrelated note, Member Daire opined that if properties along the south side of County Road C were zoned for HDR next to a rail line, he would seriously question that designation. Mr. Lloyd clarified that the location referenced by Member Daire, and that rail corridor, had for some time (off and on) been considered a likely location for a transit line or connection. Member Daire recognized that distinction if that was the situation, referencing his previous work during his planning career on the Light Rail Transit system, and opined that this would then be a prime location for HDR. If the goal was to encourage turnover of a property to its new use, Chair Gisselquist questioned if the proposed nonconforming use permit would only serve to prolong that turnover and allow the owner to limp along with that permit and any extensions. Chair Gisselquist questioned at what point the City lost the incentive to get them to turn the land over for the newly desired zoning classification and use. Mr. Lloyd recognized that as a fair point; noting that it was a matter of finding a balance between achieving redevelopment goals for an area, while not making a former industrial property an anchor around a property owner s neck with him still required to pay taxes, but not able to find a tenant. Mr. Lloyd clarified that an important distinction would be to not allow any expansion of the facilities in question, while the tenant spaces could be refinished as necessary but not expanded to limit any investment in a property that should be changing in the near future. When the Comprehensive Plan was being drawn up envisioning these major changes, Member Murphy questioned if any thought had been given to a transition plan from one use to another extremely different one and within a certain time period. Member Murphy opined that the City should be straightforward and erect a firm goal line and incent property owners to begin that transition. Mr. Lloyd responded that some sort of timeframe, with an approved, nonconforming use permit, could be appropriate, possibly by using the existing Interim Use Permit process and its related timeframe. Mr. Lloyd noted that efforts of a property owner being granted approval for an Interim Use Permit were quite high; and questioned if this should this be a lower effort or if it was inappropriate to carry on. Member Murphy suggested, as part of a nonconforming use permit, that the property owner be asked to provide a history or transition plan. Mr. Lloyd responded that there was nothing similar, from a policy standpoint, for Interim approvals at this time. In the spirit of this request by staff for direction-setting, Member Boguszewski concurred with Member Murphy that there should be a time limit or set number of times a property owner could request such a sequential re-grandfathering permit. Member Boguszewski concurred with Chair Gisselquist that presumptively the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code reflected the will of Roseville citizens in general, indicating that a prior permitted use no longer served the best interests of the community. From another perspective, Member Boguszewski recognized Member Daire s comments and a property owner unable to lease a property and therefore needing it to revert to its previous use. In his initial review of this request, Member Boguszewski advised that he was surprisingly and unexpectedly pro-owner. However, Member Boguszewski cautioned that there needed to be a clear awareness of uses flying counter to the overall intent of the current Comprehensive Plan, and clearly eliminate those more intense uses from the residential heart of Roseville. Mr. Lloyd recognized that as a fair point as well; since staff had not yet discussed specific geography; opining that there may be places or examples where something that was an easier

615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 13 use for a property owner may not be appropriate for the City or adjacent neighbors where it butted up against residential property; making circumstances where the City needed to hold a firmer line with previous uses. Member Boguszewski suggested that it may be necessary to go with an Interim Use Permit after so much time with each use addressed on their own merits on a case by case basis. Mr. Lloyd requested additional input on the process itself, whether it should involve administrative approval, the Planning Commission or City Council. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff s only concern would be one of time-sensitive issues, with the administrative approach requiring less time than the formal public hearing approval process. Member Cunningham referenced Section 2.3 of the staff report related to former land uses as a basis for what could be done; and suggested that it be laid out more clearly to provide property owners an idea of what they could or could not do, thereby reducing time constraints for all involved. If the use was reverting back to the old zoning code and permitted uses, an administrative deviation may be appropriate, with exceptions for those situations addressed by Member Boguszewski, and requiring Planning Commission approval. Member Cunningham opined that she could then be comfortable giving up some of the powers of the Commission for an administrative approval process, as long as if this was continually happening or after a certain number of times or set timeframe, it reverted back for Commission approval. Member Cunningham advised that her comments were in recognition of time constraints for property owners and/or tenants, since it could take up to three (3) months for the Planning Commission to process a decision. However, Member Cunningham questioned if this would open the City up to more legal challenges, since the landlord or property owner may not have any control over tenant turnover. At the request of Member Daire specific to Section 2.3 of the staff report, Mr. Lloyd provided rationale for staff including that section as written. Mr. Lloyd advised that to a large degree, the proposal contrasts with the Interim Use Permit process, at a minimum by providing a good model for tonight s discussion. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that this demanded that a property owner or applicant pick one use or activity for review and potential approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. By referring to previous permitted uses on a property, Mr. Lloyd opined that this provided a more general and less precise application; and would demand that the property owner come to the City less often for changes if they feel into the permitted set of uses, based on previous zoning categories. Member Daire opined that this had some merit for additional discussion. Mr. Lloyd suggested that staff create a draft hybrid of existing process in existing code and how they were processes; while taking into account Commission feedback tonight; and then bring back a draft for further discussion or creation of an actual ordinance beyond this initial broad conceptual discussion. Member Boguszewski spoke in support of giving the idea further consideration. At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Member Boguszewski concurred with Member Cunningham s suggestions on numbers; with the member consensus also in support of an administrative approval process. Member Daire offered his support if staff could clearly define options, opining that an administrative approval process was probably more desirable than a formal Commission and public hearing process. Member Murphy suggested that rather than identifying the number of times, once a proposal was published, a very clear timeline should be stated and mailed to any and all affected property owners to put them on notice of a certain time period to start planning ahead. Mr. Paschke offered several comments and considerations from that standpoint. Mr. Paschke advised that staff typically didn t see current landlords or property owners seeking an extension for a previous use, with staff usually finding out when the property has been leased for ¾ of a year and property owners unable to find tenants under a similar use. Mr. Paschke clarified that

666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 14 this was only applicable for single tenant buildings in accordance with the advice of the City Attorney. For multi-tenant buildings, Mr. Paschke advised that the City Attorney noted that the entire building would need to be vacant for the one (1) year period. Mr. Paschke further clarified that this did not apply to a great number of properties; and therefore he didn t see many property owners seeking this option or such a permit. Mr. Paschke noted that the intent was to refine the proposed permit process for those having exhausted all other opportunities and at a point where the clock had stopped ticking, creating the need for them to revert to the property s previous use. However, Mr. Paschke advised that this was something else to work through as well; at what point of time the market needs to better control and address the City s vision; with this only serving as a bridge without unnecessarily prolonging that vision. Commission Vacancy Chair Gisselquist advised that he had been invited to participate in interviews by the City Council of potential candidates for the Planning Commission vacancy. 7. Adjourn Chair Gisselquist adjourned at 8:43 p.m.

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE: 8/7/2013 ITEM NO: 5 Department Approval Item Description: Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Request by Hand In Hand Christian Montessori, with property owner Church of Corpus Christi, for approval a temporary classroom structure as an interim use at 2131 Fairview Avenue (PF13-010) Application Review Details RPCA prepared: August 1, 2012 Public hearing: August 7, 2013 City Council action: August 26, 2013 Statutory action deadline: September 9, 2013 Action taken on an interim use proposal is legislative in nature; the City has broad discretion in making land use decisions based on advancing the health, safety, and general welfare of the community. 1.0 REQUESTED ACTION In conjunction with Church of Corpus Christi, owner of 2131 Fairview Avenue, Hand In Hand Christian Montessori (HIH) has applied for approval of a temporary classroom building as an INTERIM USE. 2.0 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION Planning Division staff recommends approval of the proposed INTERIM USE; see Section 7 of this report for the detailed recommendation. 3.0 SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED ACTION By motion, recommend approval of the proposed INTERIM USE; see Section 8 of this report for the detailed action. PF13-010_RPCA_080713 Page 1 of 4

4.0 BACKGROUND 4.1 The subject property is located in City Planning District 13, has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Institutional (IN) and has a corresponding zoning classification of Institutional (INST) District. 4.2 HIH needs additional classroom space, and is in the process of determining whether to pursue a permanent expansion at this location or to find a more suitable location elsewhere. The school expects to have made such a decision within two years, enabling the removal of the temporary facility within one additional year, so the application is for approval of the temporary classroom facility as an INTERIM USE for a period of three years. 5.0 REVIEW OF INTERIM USE APPLICATION Section 1009.03 of the City Code establishes the regulations pertaining to INTERIM USES. 5.1 The purpose statement for this section indicates that: Certain land uses might not be consistent with the land uses designated in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and they might also fail to meet all of the zoning standards established for the district within which they are proposed; some such land uses may, however, be acceptable or even beneficial if reviewed and provisionally approved for a limited period of time. The purpose of the interim use review process is to allow the approval of interim uses on a case-by-case basis; approved interim uses shall have a definite end date and may be subject to specific conditions considered reasonable and/or necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. 5.2 An applicant seeking approval an INTERIM USE is required to hold an open house meeting to inform the surrounding property owners and other interested individuals of the proposal, to answer questions, and to solicit feedback. The open house for this application was held on July 10, 2013; the brief summary of the open house meeting provided by the applicant is included with this staff report as Attachment B. 5.3 An initial site plan and basic illustration of the proposed temporary classroom structure is included with this report as Attachment C. Section 1009.03D of the City Code specifies that three specific findings must be made in order to approve a proposed INTERIM USE: a. The proposed use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. This is generally intended to ensure that particular interim use will not make the site costly to clean up if the City were to acquire the property for some purpose in the future. In this case, the proposed school use is essentially the same as existing uses on site and Planning Division staff believes that the INTERIM USE would not have significant negative effects on the land. b. The proposed use will not create an excessive burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities. Because the proposed temporary classroom represents a rather minor expansion of existing land uses Planning Division staff believes that the INTERIM USE would not constitute an excessive burden on streets, parks, or other facilities. c. The proposed use will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare. The primary concerns expressed by neighboring residential property owners involve the potential exacerbation of existing storm water issues. Roseville s Public Works Department also recognizes the problem and will require the applicant to address the additional storm water runoff being created by the proposed expansion. These improvements would be made on the PF13-010_RPCA_080713 Page 2 of 4

applicant s property and be owned by the applicant. If an approval of the proposed INTERIM USE is conditioned on continuing to work with Engineering staff to address the storm water issues, Planning Division staff believes that the proposed temporary classroom structure as an INTERIM USE would not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety, and general welfare. In any case, if an approved INTERIM USE fails to conform to any of these requirements or conditions of the approval and such problems are not or cannot be reasonably resolved, the City may initiate a public hearing process to revoke the approval. 5.4 Because Roseville s comprehensive plans and zoning code guide and regulate the property for institutional development like the existing church and school, a permanent expansion which conformed to the applicable design standards wouldn t require this kind of special review and approval. The reason for the INTERIM USE application is that the temporary structure would not meet the standard design requirements. 5.5 If the proposed INTERIM USE is approved, all improvements will be required to adhere to all applicable building code. Planning Division staff would recommend that all improvements adhere to the applicable INST zoning requirements except for those pertaining to the temporary nature of the structure and the design standards. 6.0 PUBLIC COMMENT 6.1 As of the time this report was prepared, Planning Division staff has spoken with the homeowners of one neighboring residential property; they expressed some reservations based on what seems to have been an inaccurate recollection of an INTERIM USE approval from 2001, but no further input has been offered following the historical review. 6.2 The Public Works Department has a proposed storm water management project that is unrelated to the proposed INTERIM USE. City staff is working with representatives of Corpus Christi on these potential improvements that could alleviate some of the drainage issues in the Fairview Avenue corridor. Concepts include regrading the existing swale along the property line between the church and the backyards and constructing a rate control pond. A project is in preliminary plan stages and not scheduled for construction. PF13-010_RPCA_080713 Page 3 of 4

7.0 RECOMMENDATION Based on the comments and findings outlined in Sections 4 6 of this report, the Planning Division recommends approval of the proposed INTERIM USE, subject to the following conditions: a. The applicants shall continue to work with the City staff to address storm water concerns to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and b. The approval shall expire, and the temporary classroom structure shall be removed, by 11:59 p.m. on August 31, 2016 or upon the relocation of HIH off of the property, whichever comes first. 8.0 SUGGESTED ACTION By motion, recommend approval of the INTERIM USE, based on the comments and findings of Sections 4 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of this staff report. Prepared by: Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd 651-792-7073 bryan.lloyd@ci.roseville.mn.us Attachments: A: Area map B: Open house summary C: Site plan and elevations PF13-010_RPCA_080713 Page 4 of 4

Attachment A for Planning File 13-010 W AVE N 2186 1925 1915 LR / ROW 1908 1900 1886 1876 1862 LR / ROW CB / CB 1801 CB / CB 1781 CB / CB CB / CB 1751 COUNTY ROAD B W COUNTY ROAD B W 1950 1910 1810 1945 IN / INST 2131 POS / PR Evergreen Park IN / INST 1948 IN / INST 1947 PRIOR AVE 2100 1803 1797 1789 1781 1773 1765 1755 LR / ROW 61 1942 Prepared by: Community Development Department Printed: July 23, 2013 Site Location Comp Plan / Zoning Designations 1873 1872 1865 1864 1857 1849 1841 ELDRIDGE AVE 1858 Data Sources * Ramsey County GIS Base Map (7/1/2013) For further information regarding the contents of this map contact: City of Roseville, Community Development Department, 2660 Civic Center Drive, Roseville MN 1850 1842 1833 1834 1825 1826 FAIRVIEW AVE 1812 2066 ELDRIDGE AVE 1804 1803 1796 1797 1788 1789 1780 1781 1772 Location Map 1773 1766 Disclaimer arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 651-792-7085. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), 0 100 200 Feet and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which mapdoc: planning_commission_location.mxd 1765

Attachment B Bryan Lloyd From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: bthompson4654@comcast.net Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:01 AM Bryan Lloyd hihchristianmontessori HIH Christian Montessori Interim Portable Building Use at Corpus Christi Hi Bryan Thanks for taking my call this morning, as I mentioned I did hold a neighborhood meeting last night for the interim classroom and (2) neighbors came Below is a summary of the meeting from last night 7pm July 10th, 2013. Both neighbors that came live on the south side of the property line with the church and purchased their lots from the church when it was developed back in 1992 I believe. In discussing our need as a school for additional space with this use I believe is fine as they had very few questions and had no concerns about the schools operations or the building and understood our needs and desire. What they have are very strong feelings with the church and the city for drainage issues they believe still exist on the property line and discussed the background on this issue for the majority of the meeting and in closing intend to use this opportunity to bring this issue up to the city again. They went as far to mention that they have been told the city has allocated money for a project to improve the situation. I did after the meeting go and look at all catch basins and the grade that they have brought up. As far as the portable goes one item I would like to discuss more either with you or the building official is placement of the actual structure before the 7th of August. i.e setbacks from the building. Let me know when and how this would be good timing to do. Thanks again Brent Thompson 1 Page 1 of 1

24.00 ft 6.00 ft Attachment C 200.0 0 100.00 130.00 ft 68.00 ft 200.0 Feet 1: 1,200 NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. Notes Enter Map Description THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Page 1 of 3

Attachment C Page 2 of 3

Attachment C Page 3 of 3

REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION DATE: 8/7/2013 ITEM NO: 6 Division Approval Item Description: Agenda Section OTHER BUSINESS Review a proposed City acquisition of land adjacent to Langton Lake Park. 1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 Minnesota Statute 462.356 establishes how a City is to effect or realize the goals of its Comprehensive Plan once adopted. This particular statute actually precedes the requirement to adopt a zoning code that reinforces the Comprehensive Plan, and it requires the City s planning agency to review all proposals by the City to acquire or dispose of land and make findings as to the compliance of the acquisition or disposal with the Comprehensive Plan. For Roseville, the Planning Commission is the planning agency identified in the statute. 1.2 Roseville Properties owns the approximately ¾-acre parcel of land on the south side of County Road C2, abutting the western edge of Langton Lake park; an illustration of the subject property is included with this report as Attachment A. Roseville is presently in discussions with the property owner about purchasing this parcel, so the Planning Commission must review the potential acquisition and make findings about its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 1.3 The subject parcel is mostly wooded with large oak trees and, if acquired, would formally become part of the open space surrounding and buffering Langton Lake. 2.0 REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This section will identify goals and policies within the Comprehensive Plan that pertain generally to increasing park and open space resources; the review is meant to be representative of the comprehensive Plan s guidance, but the review will not be exhaustive. 2.1 GENERAL LAND USE GOALS & POLICIES Policy 1.12: Consider opportunities for acquisition of private property for sale that fills a need for parks, open space, or trail corridors. Goal 4: Protect, improve, and expand the community s natural amenities and environmental quality Policy 4.3: Promote preservation, replacement, and addition of trees within the community. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GOALS & POLICIES Goal 1: Protect, preserve, and enhance Roseville s water, land, air, and wildlife resources for current and future generations. Twin Lakes acquisition discussion Page 1 of 2