2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 8 code was all predicated on the door, not the garage itself; and if side-loaded, it didn’t 357 need to meet that particular requirement. 358 Regarding Plate #1, Mr. Paschke advised that if the home was addressed off Lexington 359 Avenue, it would be the front of the home, so the side yard was where the garage was 360 facing. If looking at the front of the home, Mr. Paschke noted that all you see is house on 361 the side of the garage, so it was in compliance. However, if the address is off Laurie 362 Road to the south, Mr. Paschke noted that then all you would see is garage and the 363 home would not be compliant. 364 With respect to nonconformities, Mr. Paschke clarified that in December of 2010 when 365 the Roseville City Council adopted its new Zoning Code and Map, it made almost every 366 single existing property in Roseville nonconforming. Mr. Paschke noted that, while 367 regulations frequently or infrequently change, only new construction or major 368 modifications over a certain percentage would trigger an existing property needing to be 369 brought into conformity; but would not be applicable to minor modifications. Mr. Paschke 370 also noted that the City did not have any sunset clause in its zoning code to require that a 371 property become compliance without one of those triggers; and he was not personally 372 aware of any municipality that had such a requirement. Mr. Paschke opined that, whether 373 minor amendments or broad changes to a city code, it would always trigger someone to 374 be out of compliance, since the updates were reflecting updated requirements or desires 375 of a city to change something, whatever that may be. Mr. Paschke noted that the result 376 was that many homes encroach into that area today, but were not impacted if there was 377 no trigger as noted above, with the property continuing as a legal, nonconforming use in 378 perpetuity. 379 In response to Member Boguszewski, whose own home is nonconforming, Mr. Paschke 380 reviewed the type of major improvements that could trigger requiring it to be brought into 381 compliance; such as if the home was raised, the new construction would need to meet 382 current code. Mr. Paschke advised that the key was that City Code was predicated by 383 State law, but if you didn’t replace the existing home on the exact footprint of the former 384 home, you would need to meet all the requirements of the new zoning code; however, if a 385 similar design was built on the same footprint, if may not meet all the requirements of the 386 current code, depending on the provisions of the State’s nonconforming laws. 387 With confirmation of his comments by Mr. Paschke, Member Boguszewski opined that 388 the intent of this code was to spur the aesthetic improvement of a neighborhood 389 incrementally more in line with the community’s visioning documents. If that is the intent, 390 Member Boguszewski spoke in opposition to Member Daire’s proposed amendment to 391 eliminate the existing 5’ setback requirement from design standards; since it would leave 392 everything in the same style it is now and not move the community in the direction 393 interpreted from those community visioning documents. 394 With staff’s revision of the third bullet point (lines 117-121), Member Stellmach advised 395 that this addressed his previous concerns. However, Member Stellmach noted his 396 continued lack of clarity with the other two bullet points for staff recommendations (lines 397 117-118) and whether that meant that any garage using raised panels didn’t have to 398 meet the setback requirement or that garages setback 50’ didn’t need to meet the 5’ 399 setback or had to meet design standards. 400 Mr. Paschke responded that the latter was the intent, that homes with attached garages 401 setback 50’ or more from the front property line did not need to have the garage setback 402 of 5’, but must meet all other requirements of Section 1004.05A. 403 Further discussion included whether line 119 should remain at 50’ and whether it should 404 specify from the property line or the street, noting that curb lines could fluctuate 405 depending on what part of the city you were in or width of the street; with some having a 406 10-12’ boulevard from the street to the property line, while others may be as low as 8’. 407 Members noted that the intent was to improve walkability; questioned how that could 408 impact properties located on curves; 409