2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 12 conditions for lot divisions making them unable to meet those requirements. Since the 550 Community Development Department and Planning staff determined, during their 551 administrative review, that the draft conceptual plans and grading pre-dated current code 552 updates and they were not able to meet the design requirement, the administrative 553 variances were granted for those two (2) homes. Mr. Paschke opined that the ability for 554 forty-two (42) of forty-four (44) homes to meet design standards; and only one developer 555 to-date expressing concern that they couldn’t met those standards, should speak to their 556 standing the test and achieving the community’s desired results. 557 Regarding the property on Lovell, Mr. Paschke advised that the previous owner had sold 558 the lots, and staff was currently working with the current owner who had been able to 559 provide a design and happy to comply with design requirements. 560 If the Commission was interested in providing more flexibility for the design standards, 561 Mr. Paschke referenced the three (3) recommendations in Section 5.0 of the staff report 562 (lines 89-92) to provide an exemption clause if developers were unable to meet design 563 standard code requirements. 564 Mr. Paschke advised that Planning staff felt unable to advocate for garage doors to be 565 forward of living space, as it negated the hard work put in by the citizen advisory groups 566 and their extensive work on the updated Comprehensive Plan and Imagine Roseville 567 2025 vision. While some may opine that staff was expanding on nuances or ideas, Mr. 568 Paschke opined that staff was following the heart of those goals. In reviewing other 569 communities with a more residential feel, Mr. Paschke noted they included front porches 570 and people gathering in front years, and a lot of pedestrian and family activities, each 571 goals expressed by residents. Mr. Paschke questioned if that same sense of place could 572 be found with garages pushed forward on the façade, opining that it gave a different or 573 closed-in feeling; as well as safety concerns or discomfort with vehicles moving too close 574 to those walking and biking. 575 Chair Gisselquist expressed appreciation for staff providing the statistics on permits; and 576 admitted that initially the design standards didn’t appeal to him, even though he agreed 577 that the “snout houses” were definitely less appealing. However, if the standards were 578 working, and the track record certainly indicated they were, Chair Gisselquist questioned 579 why they should be changed, unless it was to consider the recommendations allowing for 580 more flexibility as put forward by staff in Section 5.0. 581 Member Boguszewski stated that a history provided many examples of hard work and 582 community involvement going into creating bad legislation until the culture became more 583 enlightened; and suggested that the level of work having gone into a visioning process 584 should not necessarily be a factor or whether or not that legislation should or should not 585 be reconsidered. 586 Member Daire noted his observation of a number of Roseville homes that have a garage 587 and concrete walk with the main roof of the house leading to the front door, and appear to 588 face flush with the lead edge of the garage, but also provide a service door and 4’ 589 walkway behind the home’s roof overhang. Member Daire questioned if the updated 590 design standards would prohibit that sort of design now, even if the main roof line 591 continued out over the walkway. 592 Mr. Paschke responded that it probably would, if the garage itself sat forward of the living 593 area of the home and if the home was setback from the garage. Mr. Paschke noted that, 594 if the garage door was on the side, there would be no problem, as the structure could be 595 aesthetically pleasing if the garage was side-loaded, using some of the recent Pulte 596 homes in the Josephine Woods development as an example of that option. 597 Member Cunningham opined that, in her observations in other communities (e.g. Medina) 598 it seemed that the majority of homes had front-loading garages; and questioned if other 599 communities had similar ordinances to this one, further opining that she had never heard 600 of similar design standards. 601