2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 6 family design standards attempted to allow for that new vision. Mr. Paschke admitted that 252 he could not say that the 5’ setback for attached garages specifically got to the heart of 253 that attempt to avoid “snout houses,” which were represented by a vast majority of 254 existing homes in Roseville that was the intent of those design standards. 255 Based on his planning career for the City of Minneapolis, Member Daire advised that he 256 was well aware of the planning realm, and opined that this then was apparently staff’s 257 extrapolation based on their sense of those meetings. 258 Mr. Paschke responded that it may not even be a sense of those discussions; however, it 259 was the interpretation of staff and planning consultants through their review of a number 260 of different documents and future community aspirations that went into creating a zoning 261 ordinance that captured the essence of those broader visioning documents and guides. 262 Mr. Paschke admitted that other options may be available, but in this case, this was the 263 code that had been subsequently adopted by the City Council, incorporating those design 264 guidelines for what a future Roseville could look like. Mr. Paschke noted that there 265 appeared to be only a few voicing opposition to those design standards through the many 266 open houses (estimated at 10-15) and/or Public Hearings related to residential standards. 267 Mr. Paschke further noted that any concerns were apparently not sufficient in a great 268 enough magnitude for the City Council not to adopt the provisions, even though there 269 may be some concerns being raised now with the current Planning Commissioners or 270 City Council members. Mr. Paschke advised hat staff was not finding a concern in the 271 development community either, since they seemed more than willing to adapt their 272 designs to meet the requirements. 273 Chair Gisselquist noted that a lot of the discussions during the Imagine Roseville 2025 274 community visioning process was general in nature, and would be hard to put into play in 275 creating a zoning code. Chair Gisselquist noted that the discussions focused on livable 276 communities, more walkable neighborhoods, less emphasis on vehicular traffic and more 277 on pedestrians. Chair Gisselquist noted that staff and hired planning consultants had then 278 been tasked with taking those general aspirations and crafting them into a realistic code; 279 with the thought process among the planning community that with the residential portion 280 of a home versus the garage more predominant on the structure, it would encourage 281 those aspirations, whether or not someone specifically addressed a 5’ attached garage 282 setback at one of the meetings. Chair Gisselquist opined that it was not water over the 283 dam, and the current design standards incorporated the essence of those discussions. 284 Member Cunningham opined that, while the document references evidence to support 285 that homes designed with garages dominating the front façade didn’t create that 286 perception, there was also not a lot of compelling evidence to support that those 287 residences didn’t support a healthier, walkable neighborhood. Member Cunningham 288 questioned if it really made a neighborhood less walkable if a garage was on the front of 289 a home. However, in her personal research of design standards for one- and two-family 290 homes, Member Cunningham advised that the State of Oregon had done extensive 291 research on that, and after her review of expert testimony, they had seemed to 292 legitimately prove that “snout houses” actually discouraged pedestrian traffic. Based on 293 her further research, Member Cunningham advised that she was now more comfortable 294 in retaining the 5’ setback, even though she had found the information provided by staff 295 from the Imagine Roseville 2025 and 2030 Comprehensive Plan update helpful, it was 296 somewhat vague. 297 Member Boguszewski reiterated his theory from previous meetings and his preference to 298 allow property owners to do what they wished to do on their private property as long as it 299 didn’t “harm” the neighborhood or community. Member Boguszewski opined that too 300 large of a building mass or a disproportionately sized building could harm the character of 301 a neighborhood; however, he also recognized that those interpretations could be either 302 subjective or objective. Member Boguszewski suggested that there were three (3) options 303 for the Commission to consider related to these design standards: 304