2014_03_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Page 23 If those were increased, based on the Dale Street Project example, Member 1135 Boguszewski sought to clarify that the entire section would need to be narrowed 1136 accordingly, with Mr. Lloyd responding affirmatively, that the courtyards would need to be 1137 reduced. Member Boguszewski used another example from the Village of St. Anthony 1138 and their Eighth and Main development, lacking this separation but having a much more 1139 narrow space, which would be his preference with a wider space (45’) for one- and two- 1140 family homes. 1141 Mr. Lloyd further clarified that the proposal, based on previous discussion, was to 1142 increase the minimum periphery alley setback for one- and two-family homes from 5’ to 1143 10’. 1144 MOTION 1145 Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the 1146 City Council APPROVAL of proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS to Table 1004- 1147 5 of the Roseville Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 5 (Table 1004-5) of the 1148 staff report (page 6 of 7) dated March 5, 2014. 1149 Considerable discussion ensued related to the prospective setback amendments for 1150 periphery setbacks for minimum rear yard buildings; and minimum periphery alley 1151 setbacks for one- and two-family homes; with no consensus found on those numbers 1152 and/or their application. 1153 Member Murphy opined that the periphery setbacks jumping from 30’ to 45’ for one- and 1154 two-family homes seemed excessive, and questioned the purpose of adding more to the 1155 alley setback requirements, even though he had originally been more concerned with 1156 increasing that alley setback to 10’. 1157 Member Boguszewski spoke in support of increasing from 30’ to 45’ the minimum rear 1158 yard building periphery setback across the entire table no matter the type of structure, 1159 and a minimum periphery alley setback of 10’ across the board as well to match multi- 1160 family requirements. However, Member Boguszewski asked Member Murphy for his 1161 alternative suggestion. 1162 Member Murphy suggested bringing the total to 40’ by increasing the minimum periphery 1163 alley setback to 10’ across and retaining the 30’ periphery for one- and two-family 1164 structures. Member Murphy advised that he was familiar with the view out the rear door 1165 of old Fire Station #3 and could envision a 30’ alley and other structures placed 1166 accordingly; opining that with other site specific measures including landscaping and/or 1167 fencing, the existing neighborhood feel could be retained. 1168 Member Stellmach opined that personally he was fine with the way staff recommended; 1169 however, he was even more comfortable with Member Murphy’s recommendation. 1170 Chair Gisselquist clarified and confirmed Member Murphy’s preference to retain periphery 1171 at 30’ but moving the alley setback to 10’. Chair Gisselquist concurred with Member 1172 Murphy, opining that it was difficult for him to divorce this consideration from the specific 1173 proposal before the body. 1174 Member Murphy noted the difficulties since the GMHC proposal was the first of its type to 1175 be considered for Roseville and before this body. 1176 Member Daire commended the GMHC on their clever design in utilizing the natural swale 1177 in the middle of the subject property and its common area defined facing Cope Avenue 1178 and that corridor. In his consideration of the existing drainage difficulties found in the 1179 Corpus Christi School area, Member Daire opined that to create an impoundment area 1180 with the site sloping to its middle was very clever and would certainly serve to avoid 1181 issues as found by the purchasers of single-family homes on Cope Avenue and their 1182 complaints of water impounding on their backyard. 1183 Member Cunningham spoke to the issues identified by Member Boguszewski and the 1184 problem in bringing an entirely new infill type of neighborhood into the suburb, with most 1185