2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 7 1) Eliminate the 5’ setback provision entirely (strike item 2- lines 81 and 82 of the staff 305 report - under City Code Section 1004.05A for One- and Two-Family Design 306 Standards); OR 307 2) Retain the 5’ setback, but add in the three (3) sub-bullet points recommended by staff 308 (lines 117-121 of the staff report); or 309 3) Add the “Daire amendment” (lines 91-93 of the staff report) for any new construction 310 for one- and two-family homes to be setback at an average in keeping with the 311 homes on either side of the new home. 312 Member Boguszewski advised that, in an effort to be fair, he considered the extremes 313 that might occur with any of those options, as well as re-reviewing the neighborhoods 314 he’d previously travelled. Member Boguszewski advised that after further reviewing the 315 options and intent of the current design standards, he found himself more comfortable 316 with supporting the three recommendations of staff (lines 117-121) that would keep a 317 residential feel and allow room for landscaping in front of a home as well. Member 318 Boguszewski advised that he had not initially realized that to eliminate the existing 5’ 319 setback would open up the code for abuse. Member Boguszewski stated that he would 320 support the proposal as recommended by staff, including the 50’ waiver without getting 321 into additional logistical problems of adopting the “Daire proposal,” which essentially 322 achieved the same goal. 323 Member Daire opined that it appeared that this particular item and the philosophy behind 324 it had been discussed a lot; however, he referenced the June 5, 2013 meeting minutes 325 where Mr. Paschke had supported the role of the Planning Commission to “nitpick” things 326 being considered as a policy of the community. Therefore, at the risk of being nitpicky, 327 Member Daire pointed out a number of inconsistencies in staff’s proposal that needed to 328 be addressed; and outlined them as follows. 329 1) The statement (lines 106-107) about regulating garage doors versus garages 330 themselves. Member Daire referenced line 108 related to garages forward of a home 331 needing to be in conformance with code (line 108); noting that most references in 332 zoning code modifications related to garages, not garage doors. Member Daire noted 333 that if a garage was side-loaded, it would affect it technically, but to some extent, 334 either the comment on lines 106-108 should be amended as it affected the garage 335 itself; or any wording of garages versus garage doors needed revised for 336 consistency. 337 2) Member Daire advised that he had tracked most of the homes provided by staff 338 through aerial photographs attached to the staff report; and noted that the first plat 339 was extremely interested, but questioned if staff had intended it as a good or bad 340 example of how code would affect it. Member Daire noted that the setback was 4’, 341 not 5’ and it was a corner lot. When viewed from the home numbered “2231” if 342 viewed from Lexington Avenue, Member Daire noted that it provided a side view of 343 the garage, while if viewed from Laurie Road, the whole façade was basically garage 344 and garage door; making it unclear to him how that particular house would be treated 345 on a corner lot. 346 3) While noting that staff had made an assertion of which he was skeptical, that most 347 Roseville homes have a garage setback from the line of the main structure, Member 348 Daire advised that in his review of only plates 1 and 2, he found that was indeed true 349 and needed to adjust that skepticism. However, Member Daire did note that most 350 homes with a slight setback of the garage from the residential portion were more in 351 the nature of 3’-4’ versus 5’ creating nonconforming issues and placing owners in the 352 position of being responsible to address it as it related to the current zoning code. 353 With respect to garage doors, Mr. Paschke responded that the particular section of code 354 related to garage doors, not garages; and the only proposal related to the structure 355 should be the first one addressing architectural details. Mr. Paschke advised that the 356