2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 13 Mr. Paschke advised that some do, and some are even more specific, especially newer 602 and often larger communities designed around park settings and homes set further 603 forward on a lot, with garages tucked back. Mr. Paschke referenced a recent large 604 Disney housing development that had been designed around that concept, and others 605 littered throughout the United States, including many in MN. While not sure if the term 606 “trend” was applicable, Mr. Paschke advised that the intent was to provide some 607 regulation where there had not previously been any and to meet the community desires 608 to have certain designs for whatever reason. To the extent legislation was created, Mr. 609 Paschke note that the ability was available to have a City and/or its residential community 610 appear a certain way. Mr. Paschke reiterated that the majority of Roseville residences 611 already achieve the requirements implemented since 2010; and while concurring with 612 Member Boguszewski on some points, he could not say whether or not one design was 613 better than another, simply that these standards got to the core of what was trying to be 614 achieved. Mr. Paschke again noted the data from building permits that provided a good 615 track record. 616 Member Boguszewski noted the recent variance request before the Variance Board for 617 the proposed home as referenced by Mr. Paschke, stating that he had voted with the 618 majority to deny that variance, based on being unconvinced that the proposed design 619 was the only feasible one for that site, with the builder presenting it as the only design 620 option that would allow pricing to sell a home. While not thinking that jury nullification of 621 an existing law was necessarily always wrong, Member Boguszewski suggested caution 622 in dictating design standards for residences. 623 Member Boguszewski opined that his fundamental disagreement was with the concept 624 that placement of the front face of a garage is a major contributor to street aesthetics or 625 that the City should be addressing it at all. While recognizing that only one (1) appeal had 626 been received since the new standards were adopted in 2010, Member Boguszewski 627 noted that his perception may not stand, since everyone else had apparently read the 628 ordinance. In reviewing current housing stock, and based on his own split level home with 629 flush front garage, Member Boguszewski opined that his neighborhood had a residential 630 look. However, Member Boguszewski opined that it was more due to the aesthetics or 631 architectural components of those homes and landscaping versus the location of the 632 garage. Member Boguszewski opined that locating the garage forward and front-facing 633 was not a determining factor in the feel of a block, especially when the majority of homes 634 in a neighborhood were of that design. 635 If the City chose to address the design standards, Member Boguszewski suggested that 636 the only standard should be related to location of the garage and home to front setbacks 637 and sidewalks; or at a maximum that more flexibility be allowed if not eliminated 638 completely, which would be his first preference. Member Boguszewski noted that this 639 preference is not because he didn’t believe aesthetics should be addressed; however, he 640 just didn’t think these particular design standards contributed or detracted from a home’s 641 aesthetics. 642 Member Stellmach expressed his personal support of the design standards, whether or 643 not a “snout house” was someone’s preferred design or not. Member Stellmach stated 644 that he did not personally like a home’s focus or emphasis on the garage. If the 645 Commission was to consider staff’s recommendations in Section 5.0 of the report, 646 Member Stellmach expressed concern with the third bullet point, specifically how 647 expansive that exception could be, or if there was any concern that garages could then 648 cover 100% of the front of a home. 649 Mr. Paschke responded that it would not limit your design preference, with a minimum 650 setback of 30’, and this would be 20’ beyond that, otherwise you would lose the sense of 651 place or what the code was trying to achieve with garage setbacks if the entire structure 652 was setback. Mr. Paschke noted that there were minimal deep lots that could achieve this 653 requirement; but could provide a way to not restrict or limit completely all lots in Roseville 654 in having a home forward/garage back; and if the ability was there to set the structure 655