|
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014
<br />Page 18
<br />Mr. Paschke noted that staff was recommending a retention of the current internal side
<br />871
<br />yard, and specific to the Dale Street Project, noted that it may meet or even exceed that
<br />872
<br />setback.
<br />873
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff was recommending front yard setbacks, with porches
<br />874
<br />involved, be tied to the width of the courtyard area; and provided several scenarios for
<br />875
<br />courtyard boundaries, with caveats all related to porches to keep those porches in front of
<br />876
<br />the homes.
<br />877
<br />Specific to the Dale Street Project, and the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr.
<br />878
<br />Paschke advised that the courtyard widths were over 45’ and the setback was at
<br />879
<br />approximately 7’.
<br />880
<br />Member Boguszewski, specific to the interior courtyard, but not its width, questioned the
<br />881
<br />setback space behind the houses on the western edge of the pocket neighborhood and
<br />882
<br />the width of the alley. From his perspective, Member Boguszewski opined that this
<br />883
<br />created a single-lane alley, not a ring road; and conceptually, he would prefer to see a
<br />884
<br />setback for interior versus sufficient through-space behind. Member Boguszewski opined
<br />885
<br />that his philosophy of setbacks for the front of a house was to manage control and
<br />886
<br />consistency over that part that was visible to the front of the world. However, in a pocket
<br />887
<br />development, Member Boguszewski noted that the world only saw the backs or garages,
<br />888
<br />and in the Dale Street Project, it appeared to be a narrow, single-lane alley circling this
<br />889
<br />pocket. Between that and the row homes on Dale Street, Member Boguszewski
<br />890
<br />questioned the impact burden of the developer and how they planned to sell it to the
<br />891
<br />buyer, butting up narrowly to an existing property owner. Therefore, Member
<br />892
<br />Boguszewski opined that he cared more about rear setbacks from the garages on the
<br />893
<br />edge of the Dale Street Project, or other potential developments as well.
<br />894
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that this was now at 30’ and there was no recommendation for
<br />895
<br />changing that periphery setback, unless Member Boguszewski wanted to suggest a
<br />896
<br />greater setback for the alley as part of this action currently being considered, and for
<br />897
<br />creating standards applying to any such development. Mr. Paschke opined that this was
<br />898
<br />a unique situation, with most private driveways having a 5’ – 10’ setback. While
<br />899
<br />understanding the impact of things, Mr. Paschke advised that staff was seeking
<br />900
<br />consistency with how they’ve been allowed in other situations.
<br />901
<br />At the request of Member Murphy and specific to the Dale Street Project, Mr. Paschke
<br />902
<br />advised that there was a 33’ setback between the proposed garages and the adjacent,
<br />903
<br />single-family home on the side property line on the west; with the setback angling, and at
<br />904
<br />a minimum distance of 7’ from the back of the curb line to the property line where it
<br />905
<br />angled again. Mr. Paschke advised that the minimum requirement determined by the Fire
<br />906
<br />Marshal for the alley was 18’ for the two-way road, and even though they’d prefer it
<br />907
<br />slightly wider, this is the minimum they indicated.
<br />908
<br />For comparison purpose, Member Daire advised that, in Minneapolis, their alleys are 12’
<br />909
<br />wide, and this is proposed at 18’ wide. Member Daire noted, and Mr. Paschke concurred,
<br />910
<br />that typical parking lot stalls provided 21’ across from one stall to another to allow for
<br />911
<br />turning and backing, with the alley for the Dale Street Project providing a distance of 26’
<br />912
<br />from the garage itself; 5’ more than found in parking lots with perpendicular parking. Mr.
<br />913
<br />Paschke advised that Roseville City Code required a 24’ drive lane.
<br />914
<br />In linear feet, and specific to these ten residents, with only five on one side being of great
<br />915
<br />concern to him, Member Boguszewski noted that those concerns are not just width, but
<br />916
<br />whether or not there was adequate space to address those five families and their cars
<br />917
<br />versus the density of uses in Minneapolis, which may actually be less than the potential
<br />918
<br />in this area, especially during peak periods and during winter months.
<br />919
<br />Member Daire advised that, of more concern to him, was snow removal and/or storage
<br />920
<br />from the alley and where parking and visitor parking was proposed for the homes.
<br />921
<br />Member Daire opined that it appeared prudent for him to say that the 8’ parking bay for
<br />922
<br />cars parked across garage doors would suffice; however, he questioned if that was
<br />923
<br />
<br />
|