2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 5 c. PROJECT FILE 13-0017 198 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT 199 AMENDMENTS to Section 1004.05, One- and Two-Family Design Standards 200 regarding regulation of forward-facing garage doors 201 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at approximately 202 7:18 p.m. 203 City Planner Paschke referenced the staff report containing more detailed information 204 and goals and policies supporting house-prominent design predicated by vision 205 statements from the Imagine Roseville 2025 and Roseville 2030 Comprehensive Plan 206 Update, as requested at the June 2013 meeting of the Commission. Mr. Paschke noted 207 that the City’s Planning Staff and Consultants had developed design standards to slightly 208 modify design for one- and two-family homes to avoid attached garages being the most 209 prominent feature of a home’s façade in the effort to create a perception of a more 210 walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhood. 211 While acknowledging those past discussions, Mr. Paschke, and specifically Member 212 Daire’s proposal from the previous meeting, he advised that staff had investigated it 213 further, but concluded that that in practical application the proposal would be difficult to 214 implement; and advised that staff could therefore not support it at this point. Mr. Paschke 215 concluded by advising that staff continued to support and recommend their original three 216 (3) amendments for City Code specific to this issue, with a minor modification to the third 217 point to clarify concerns of the commission for homes with attached garages setback 218 significantly from the front property line. Mr. Paschke opined that inserting the “Daire 219 proposal” and eliminating the minimum 5’ setback from the front of the home as a design 220 feature would essentially serve to defeat the entire intent of that section of code, at least 221 from his perspective. 222 Member Boguszewski commended staff on their thorough review of Member Daire’s 223 proposal, even though that was not their recommendation. Member Boguszewski opined 224 that the staff report did a good job of capturing a many-layered discussion and fairly 225 captured Member Daire’s comments on homes being constructed similar to others 226 already existing in the neighborhood. 227 Since he had not been present during the Imagine Roseville 2025 or Comprehensive 228 Plan meetings and their subsequent adoption, Member Daire questioned if there had 229 been any discussion or comments about what was included specific to this design 230 standard, as while they may be helpful goals, he found nothing during his personal review 231 of the documents that included any statements recommending a 5’ setback for a garage 232 from the main residential structure. Member Daire recognized that there may have been 233 some discussion, but asked staff if there were any specifics regarding the 5’ setback; and 234 questioned if staff had attended those community meetings. Mr. Daire asked Mr. Paschke 235 specifically if he recalled any meetings where actual garage placement was indicated to 236 enhance neighborhood image, walkability or to provide community gathering places. 237 Mr. Paschke advised that City staff was involved to some degree in some, but not all of 238 the meetings, but both in-house staff and planning consultants had been involved in the 239 brainstorming and strategy discussions, resulting in the current zoning code based on 240 that community visioning and comprehensive plan guidance. Mr. Paschke further advised 241 that without referencing and researching those meeting minutes further, he would be 242 unable to respond to the specifics discussed. However, Mr. Paschke noted that the 243 discussions, as well as both documents, were very broad and intentionally generic 244 enough to allow for more flexibility in design standards, while meeting the vision for a 245 future Roseville to encourage pedestrian versus vehicle transportation; improve 246 neighborhood images from the 1959 to-date single-family home design of “snout houses;” 247 and seek to facilitate community gathering place. Mr. Paschke advised that, as a typical 248 nomenclature of the planning field, specifics could or should not always be addressed 249 that could stifle individuality, while maintaining a future vision for which the community 250 could strive. Mr. Paschke noted that City Code, Section 1004.05A for those one- and two- 251