2014_0811_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A Public Comment Dean Hanson, Hanson Builders, office in Andover, MN Mr. Hanson provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof, entitled "Architectural Guidelines for Garages." Mr. Hanson reviewed his firm's 35 years of experience working in thirteen different communities, including presently working in nine different cities including Roseville. Mr. Hanson expressed appreciation for Council comments heard so far tonight; and advised that in all the communities his custom design/builder firm worked in, there were no garage restrictions other than setback requirements other than in the City of Roseville. In attempting to create more home-friendly fronts for homes, Mr. Hanson opined that further challenges were created in giving homeowners what they were seeking, especially when doing custom building versus national tract home construction. Mr. Hanson opined that while 5' may not seem like much, it served to create a big difference in how a home was designed, including placement of stairways from garages into a home and steps to access those areas. Mr. Hanson respectfully made a simple request of the City Council that flexibility be provided to come forward 5' with a garage, which would serve to alleviate 80% of the problems and challenges they had in designing a home in Roseville. Discussion ensued among Councilmembers and Mr. Hanson related to porches; and garage regulations in other communities typically being at a percentage and addressed via developer covenants versus city ordinance. Councilmember McGehee moved to adopt Planning Commission recommendation #3 (Attachment D), modified to make the garage regulations in code that the garage door could not exceed 40% of the front façade of the building. Mayor Roe clarified that the current code language would maintain that 40% provision; and due to the lack of a second, ruled the motion failed. Laliberte moved, Etten seconded, to direct staff to develop and correct current code language accordingly to facilitate Alternative Action #3 in Section 9.0 of the RCA; allowing for up to a 5' projection of the garage. Councilmember McGehee offered a friendly amendment to accept the proposal by the Planning Commission if a house was in excess of 40 back from front of the property. Councilmember Laliberte did not accept the friendly amendment offered. Councilmember Willmus opined that the 5' provision served to increase design elements of the home and neighborhood/community connectivity initiatives; and would be a vast improvement over current language; and offered his support for the motion as long as it acknowledged that there were certain hardships in practical use. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the issue could be taken back to the Planning Commission seeking their feedback on whether this action took away from what they were trying to achieve, even though it allowed more flexibility which appeared to be their intent. Councilmember Willmus opined that Councilmember McGehee's idea was interesting in some areas of town with large lots and home setbacks of 100' or more, and he could see exceptions for those situations and hoped that consideration could enter into the process and be addressed adequately.