2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 9 Associate Planner Lloyd noted that typically setbacks are measured from property lines, 410 but in cases like this when the pedestrian realm was the main concern and how 411 architectural detail adjacent to that affected that realm, it may make sense to apply 412 distance with respect to the street, even though there are not sidewalks throughout the 413 entire City yet. Mr. Lloyd opined that reference that distance of where the garage door is 414 doesn’t matter anymore from the street from a pedestrian perspective, and in some 415 places where a boulevard may be 20’ or more, enforcing further setbacks from the 416 property line got even further from the pedestrian realm. Mr. Lloyd opined that it made 417 sense to consider the setback from the curb; however, opined that if that was to be the 418 starting point it should remain 50’. Mr. Lloyd suggested that if language was to be 419 revised, that it says “street edge,” in cases where there may be no curb line. 420 Member Boguszewski noted that if typical boulevards are 10-15’, the setback could be 421 defined at 60-65’ from the street. Member Boguszewski concurred with the concept of the 422 pedestrian realm and making sure the structure was far enough from where that began. 423 Member Murphy questioned if there was any advantage to saying “street” or “property 424 line” in situations where a street may get widened; opining that he’d rather decrease the 425 footage and retain the reference to “property line.” 426 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:53 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 427 MOTION 428 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to 429 the City Council retention of current design standards for single- and two-family 430 homes (Section 1004.05A) with APPROVAL of ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS as 431 detailed in Section 5 of the staff dated July 10, 2013 (lines 117-121) providing 432 options to provide additional flexibility for those design standards; with one 433 amendment as follows: 434  Revise the attached garage setback from fifty feet (50’) to forty feet (40’) in line 435 119 of the staff report. 436 Ayes: 6 437 Nays: 0 438 Motion carried. 439 Council action related to this action is anticipated at an August of 2013 meeting. 440 d. PROJECT FILE 13-0017 441 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of a ZONING TEXT 442 AMENDMENTS to Section 1004.02 (Residential Accessory Buildings) regarding 443 design requirements and performance standards 444 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at 7:56 p.m. 445 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd summarized the request by the Planning Division to 446 reintroduce the height restriction for accessory structures contained in previous iterations 447 of the zoning code, but unintentionally omitted from the 2012 zoning update. As detailed 448 in the July 10, 2013 staff report (Section 4.3), Mr. Lloyd opined that such a limitation 449 remained worthwhile; with the proposed text changes detailed in Section 5.0 of the staff 450 report and corresponding Table 1004-1 in Section 1004.02 (Accessory Buildings) and 451 footnotes as highlighted. 452 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd noted that this particular section of 453 code specifically addressed residential accessory buildings used for storage, and would 454 not affect a child’s tree house or a pergola on the property. 455 In the event of a low-lying rambler, Member Daire questioned if there was any recourse 456 for an owner if the width of the garage and matching the roof slope to the existing 457 structure brought the peak above the average roofline peak of the main structure. 458