2014_08_06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 5 Member Boguszewski opining that by filing in the actual footage for the setback on 199 exceptionally deep lots, it set an arbitrary threshold beyond which the restriction is based. 200 Member Daire opined that, as he reads the proposed language, it seems that the 201 extension of the garage can be a maximum of 5’ beyond any portion of the residential 202 structure that has to adhere to the 30’ setback; and if any part of the structure; but if the 203 garage extension maxed out at 5’, and still satisfied the 30’ setback requirement, it would 204 absolutely contain that and at the same time maintain relative uniformity. 205 Member Boguszewski noted Member Daire’s interpretation would be correct for homes at 206 that narrow boundary; however, he questioned if a greater allowance should be made for 207 those homes already set back 75’ to 100’ back from the property line. If someone 208 constructed a new home on such a large property, Member Boguszewski stated that he’d 209 want a specific number applied for that setback to accommodate that deeper lot, and void 210 the need to comply with the 5’ limit on garage projections, since the structure was so far 211 off the street frontage it wouldn’t affect any neighbor’s quality of life. 212 Member Murphy referenced staff recommendation c. (page 6, lines 186-191), based on 213 his interpretation of the City Council’s charge. 214 Mr. Bilotta reviewed the discussion at the City Council level and their recognition that the 215 Planning Commission may have been aware of something in their previous 216 recommendation to specifically address big lots and excessive setbacks on deeper lots, 217 while not affecting the character of the neighborhood. However, during that discussion, 218 Mr. Bilotta advised that the City Council questioned if 40’ was the right number, and 219 suggested further deliberation and recommendation by the Planning Commission to see 220 if there was a better number for those unique properties not having any hardship issues 221 (e.g. Mueller Subdivision site as an example). 222 Mr. Paschke noted that there are a number of neighborhood properties in Roseville that 223 were narrow and deep, allowing for a 75’ to 100’ setback, with most of those homes set 224 back toward the center of the lot. 225 Mr. Bilotta opined that, if a home is located 50’ or closer to the street, staff was of the 226 opinion that those homes would have some impact on street views. Therefore, staff was 227 leaning toward a recommendation of 75’ to 100’; with placement not far enough back so it 228 became an impediment, but also eliminating any impact on the character of the 229 neighborhood. 230 Given the additional research and feedback, Chair Gisselquist opined that with 80% to 231 90% of standards being addressed with revised standards, he was amenable to choosing 232 the footage amount for those deeper lots. 233 Member Boguszewski suggested choosing a setback of four car lengths, or 80’, seemed 234 a good place to start. 235 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:15 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. 236 MOTION 237 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to 238 the City Council an amendment to Section 1004.04.A.2. Of Roseville City Code as 239 follows: 240  Line 165 – 168 of the staff report: 241 2. Garage doors shall be set back at least five feet \[allowed to extend forward a 242 maximum of five feet\] from the predominant portion of the principal use, \[while 243 still required to meet the thirty-foot principal structure front yard setback\]; and 244  Eliminate the Planning Commission’s previous recommendation of November 245 7, 2013; and 246