CC_Minutes_2014_0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 7, 2014 Page 27 distance between the garage door and side property line and didn't work; provid- ing concern for him and how to develop code to accommodate such situations. Mr. Bilotta noted that this was the purpose of the Administrative Waiver process, and was also applicable for unique lots throughout the community, including those lake lots tending to be narrow and deep and not oriented to the street as much as to the shoreline. Mayor Roe noted that the Administrative Waiver process was part of current code. In observing those images provided in the RCA (Attachment E) for compliant and non-compliant homes, Councilmember McGehee opined that she found all of the homes very nice, providing a lot of variety, and essentially allowing people to do what they wanted on their own lots; and further opined that she found none of those images depicting any serious need for abatement. Councilmember Etten reviewed one situation of a friend in Roseville who during construction of their new home in the Josephine Woods development, were re- quired to shift the front of their home to the back and walk around it to access their front door due to these current code restrictions, creating great frustration for them. At the request of Councilmember Etten on how to make the process more workable in that type of situation, Mr. Bilotta reviewed the Administrative Waiv- er process and hardship criteria required. Mr. Bilotta clarified that this was not simply at staff's discretion to remain consistent, and did add another hurdle to seek a variance and another body to weigh in to make those discretionary choices. Councilmember Etten opined that changes were needed to ensure developers felt welcome in the community with ordinances working to promote that effort rather than an ordinance that achieved the opposite of that intent. Councilmember Willmus questioned the real intent of the ordinance in the first place, whether it was to get away from infill neighborhoods with garages out in front, or whether the same result was created by positioning the garages behind the front property line; and questioned whether there was a balance or a hybrid version to provide some difference between home facades. Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was leaning toward the plus 5' option; and referenc- ing the images in Attachment E, noted that there were a lot that were not in com- pliance and with a zero' setback; with newer homes having a projection and al- lowing more variety in design and not ending up with a lot of negatives. Councilmember Laliberte opined that she found the 5' setback too specific, and in pp , reviewing the community, found a vast majority that were not in compliance. Councilmember Laliberte suggested language that either said in front of the house or allowed a 5' setback behind or in front of the line with the house; but not being