2014_0811_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A Mr. Bilotta advised that staff was leaning toward the plus 5' option; and referencing the images in Attachment E, noted that there were a lot that were not in compliance and with a zero' setback; with newer homes having a projection and allowing 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 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 so stringent when the language didn’t fit with what was already in place throughout the community. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's comments; opining that the language was not consistent with existing housing stock; and further opined that the City of Roseville was not a totally urban city with sidewalks on every street or appropriate sites for porches, yet still having very engaged residential neighborhoods. Councilmember McGehee stated that she found this zoning code language offensive, opining that it was your house and anything beyond requiring a reasonable proportion to the frontage seemed unfair to her. Councilmember McGehee stated that she preferred to see people coming to Roseville with creative ideas to build what they liked; but did support undergrounding wires and requiring energy efficiencies versus telling people where to build their garages. Councilmember McGehee opined that the City shouldn’t be in the design mode or be arbitrators for people’s tastes on their own properties. Form his personal perspective, Mayor Roe opined that what was eyes forward, or the 40% limitation addressed a lot of things; especially the "garage forward home design" where only a small portion of the home peaked out behind the garage; with this addressing that concern. Mayor Roe stated that he was comfortable with possible alternative action for Possible Alternative Action (Section 9.0 of the RCA) Item #3 addressing the 5? distance and Administrative Deviations for special circumstances. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bilotta clarified the intent of Alternative #3 specific for the principle building line not projecting into setbacks, but allowing the garage set 5' forward as long as the setback remained at 30' and no more than 40% of the building façade was taken up by the garage. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Mr. Bilotta also addressed hardship variables possible under the Administrative Deviation process, and examples for significantly narrow lots, where garages may be pushed back into wetlands or shorelands, cul-de-sac lots pie shaped, or other situations that were not feasible or would make the house unreasonably narrow. Mr. Bilotta advised that those were the only type of situations where staff would feel comfortable addressing those administratively. Mr. Bilotta noted that the option was always available for an applicant/developer to go through the appeal process if staff denied such a deviation and seek recourse from the City Council. Specific to Alternative #3, Councilmember Laliberte clarified that this would give the ability to go 5' forward from the principle line as well as other options; opining that she didn’t want to move from one specific standard and eliminate another, but still allow that flexibility. Mayor Roe concurred.