2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 16 adopted in 2010 and amended in 2011 provided for reasonable setbacks based on logic. 766 Mr. Paschke noted that, as actual uses had come forward, and a more in-depth 767 application process developed, along with the proposed Greater metropolitan Housing 768 Corporation (GMHC) redevelopment known as the “Dale Street Project,” it had become 769 apparent that some of those requirements were not appropriate and changes were 770 indicated to address various challenges in realistic application and use. Mr. Paschke 771 reviewed those applicable setbacks that had been creating some of those challenges, as 772 detailed in Section 4.0 of the staff report; and specifics of the types of homes proposed 773 for the GMHC proposal, and on pages 2 through 7 of the staff report and involving some 774 types of homes not those typically or currently found in Roseville at this time. Each of 775 those specific areas included staff’s recommendation for text amendments that would 776 further address those current challenges with setbacks coming forward in a mixed- 777 residential development versus standard setbacks in a single-family type of residential 778 development. 779 Mr. Paschke noted a further slight modification related to the Dale Street Row Home 780 proposal of the GMHC, with the surveyor providing updated information earlier today, 781 with the packet information changing from that listed to a setback of four versus fourteen 782 feet from the property line on the north. Mr. Paschke opined that neither proposal was 783 unreasonable as long as there was separation from the street – curb edge – of 15’ or 784 more or a setback of 0’ to 15’ from the curb edge, whichever is greater. Mr. Paschke 785 noted that this accomplished the goal for the structure or porch to be setback from that 786 public portion as indicated for the row homes as proposed. 787 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke clarified that the front porch could 788 be up to the property line or a minimum of 15’ from the curb edge of Dale Street; with 789 Dale Street 30’ from that and allowing for 12.5’ from the proposed sidewalk installation; 790 providing more than enough separation from the street itself and the porch, even though 791 that area would vary depending on the size of the property. Mr. Paschke further clarified 792 that staff was proposing 0’, and the applicant was prosing 4’ and 30’ respectively; and 793 responded that a pathway would be installed versus the existing cement side walk. 794 At the request of Member Daire as to how this compared to the Carey Dale Row Houses 795 further to the north, Mr. Paschke responded that he was not sure, as those had been 796 constructed some time ago, and current zoning code requirements were no longer 797 applicable. 798 Member Boguszewski asked for a staff explanation on how this recommendation was not 799 incongruous with staff concerns to retain walkability in neighborhoods and to avoid 800 massing. Member Boguszewski opined that to him this seemed of great concern and 801 contrary to those goals. 802 Mr. Paschke respectfully disagreed, opining that the massing addressed in those 803 concerns were more related to large buildings, with those buildings, in accordance with 804 the zoning ordinance, required to be located up to the property line or close to it; and 805 most involving corner locations. Therefore, Mr. Paschke noted that code required a large 806 portion within a certain number of feet of the property line, with the goal of code to create 807 pedestrian-friendly situations, and no parking in front of those buildings in residential 808 situations. In a more urban, row home situation versus the above-referenced apartment 809 complex, Mr. Paschke noted that the goal was to promote activity near the street or 810 sidewalk through the use of stairs, porches or community gathering areas. In apartment 811 complexes, Mr. Paschke confirmed that there were obviously some issues of massing to 812 deal with, but code required that they be at or near the front property line, which he would 813 support; using the recent Aeon development and building as an example. Mr. Paschke 814 opined that avoidance of massing in this instance was being addressed through vertical 815 and horizontal articulations. 816 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the architect for the 817 GMHC project had provided elevations at Open Houses showing conceptual drawings for 818 the row homes. In referencing those drawings, and as staff displayed them for the public, 819