2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 15 Member Boguszewski agreed that consistency contributed to the aesthetics of a street by 709 not creating jarring designs. 710 In recognizing that a lot of people talked about neighborhood consistency, Mr. Paschke 711 questioned what those defined boundaries were for Roseville; and further questioned 712 how many houses on either side of yours should be required to share the same 713 consistency or character. 714 Member Daire clarified that he was suggesting a block face and not necessarily a 715 technical neighborhood. 716 Mr. Paschke questioned what a block face represented, since it was different 717 everywhere; whether it referred to a full length of a street or avenue, or a certain length of 718 it, or only infill on a block or cul-de-sac. 719 Member Daire again clarified that he was not talking about an entire street, but something 720 more fine-grained in urban design terms, with one street along an existing block face as 721 his suggesting as a fine enough grain for micro-managing. When getting into a 722 subdivision with six (6) homes mostly facing each other, on a cul-de-sac and at the end of 723 a 200’ street, Member Daire advised that he had no problem with the application of this to 724 that particular setting with individual lot setbacks for that. In other infill situations, Member 725 Daire opined that it struck him that the City was attempting to micro-manage a situation 726 not needing that micro-management; as long as consideration was given to whether or 727 not the proposed design was reasonable consistent with homes on either side and/or 728 across the street, not necessarily the entire neighborhood, but if driving along the street, 729 you would feel you fit in. Member Daire didn’t disagree with the attempt to meet the goals 730 of the updated Comprehensive Plan and the community vision document, and striving to 731 emphasis a pedestrian- versus automobile-dominated environment. However, if it was 732 getting too definitive, Member Daire suggested that the issue may need to be tabled until 733 more flexibility could be found. 734 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 9:07 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 735 Chair Gisselquist thanked Members for a good discussion and good strategy points 736 raised on several options. From his personal standpoint, Chair Gisselquist advised that 737 he wasn’t sure he was ready to strike the entire section for garage setback of 5’; 738 however, Member Daire’s suggestion to table the discussion for further review and 739 consideration may be prudent, especially since the Commission had not even yet delved 740 into Standard #1 on lines 35 – 36 of the staff report. 741 Member Boguszewski agreed that the desire was for residential versus garage faces; 742 however, he reiterated his opinion that that goal was not affected by the placement of 743 garages on the front. 744 Chair Gisselquist suggested that the intent was to reduce any perception of the 745 predominance of garages in neighborhoods, allowing more interaction of residents; with 746 the design standards in place to force design that would increase community, and spoke 747 in support of it as a good goal. However, in dictating the actual percentage of garage and 748 building façade configuration, Chair Gisselquist opined that is seemed to have opened up 749 a Pandora ’s Box again; and maybe the issue should be tabled for now. At this point, 750 Chair Gisselquist stated that he was more supportive of leaving current language as is. 751 Member Olsen opined that he preferred moving to leave language as it stands, even after 752 tonight’s discussion, versus tabling the issue yet again. Member Olsen stated that he also 753 had a problem with a part of the discussion, thinking he was becoming a Libertarian, in 754 attempting to dictate home design consistent with neighboring homes. Member Olsen 755 spoke in support of individuality in design, many proving classy and fun allowing people 756 to design things differently than their neighbors. Member Olsen opined that he was in 757 support of staff’s three (3) recommendation as outlined in Section 5. 758 MOTION 759 Member Olsen moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to the City 760