Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, August 6, 2014 <br />Page 6 <br /> <br /> Amend Section 1004.04.A. (Planning Commission’s recommendation of <br />247 <br />November 7, 2014) that increases the setback distance to something greater <br />248 <br />than forty feet, as follows: <br />249 <br /> “Homes with an attached garage that is set back 80’ feet or more from <br />250 <br />o <br />the front property line are exempt from meeting the requirements as <br />251 <br />referenced above in the first bullet point, but must meet all other <br />252 <br />requirements of Section 1004.04.A. <br />253 <br />Member Stellmach spoke in support of the motion, as it addressed his previously <br />254 <br />expressed concerns that without having some flexibility for home design and construction <br />255 <br />for homeowners and developers, those residential standards created redundant design. <br />256 <br />Member Cunningham spoke in opposition to the motion, opining that she preferred a 100’ <br />257 <br />setback for deeper lots; and while she may be persuaded to support an 80’ setback, she <br />258 <br />questioned if an additional 20’ actually made that much difference and deferred to staff’s <br />259 <br />expertise. <br />260 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that there were many lots in Roseville and throughout the <br />261 <br />metropolitan area averaged 130’ deep and 70’ to 85’ wide; and most homes were <br />262 <br />setback 30’, while some may be 25’. <br />263 <br />Discussion ensued regarding the number of vehicles that could be parked in a driveway <br />264 <br />depending on setback requirements. <br />265 <br />Member Daire expressed his personal concern that a two-lane driveway in front of a <br />266 <br />double garage could allow up to eight vehicles to be parked there. <br />267 <br />As the maker of the motion, Member Boguszewski advised that he would consider the <br />268 <br />consensus of the body, and if the majority supported 100’, he would agree to amend the <br />269 <br />motion accordingly. <br />270 <br />Mr. Paschke clarified that there would only be a few lots (e.g. Gluck Lane, Parker <br />271 <br />Avenue) that were applicable and which may be subdivided for residential use and then <br />272 <br />unable to comply with the longer setback. In other unique areas with existing homes <br />273 <br />already set back, Mr. Paschke opined that it would give them the benefit and credit for <br />274 <br />what they currently had. <br />275 <br />MOTION (restated) <br />276 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Cunningham to recommend to <br />277 <br />the City Council an amendment to Section 1004.04.A.2. Of Roseville City Code as <br />278 <br />follows: <br />279 <br /> <br /> Line 165 – 168 of the staff report: <br />280 <br />2. Garage doors shall be set back at least five feet \[allowed to extend forward a <br />281 <br />maximum of five feet\] from the predominant portion of the principal use, \[while <br />282 <br />still required to meet the thirty-foot principal structure front yard setback\]; and <br />283 <br /> <br /> Eliminate the Planning Commission’s previous recommendation of November <br />284 <br />7, 2013; and <br />285 <br /> <br /> Amend Section 1004.04.A. (Planning Commission’s recommendation of <br />286 <br />November 7, 2014) that increases the setback distance to something greater <br />287 <br />than forty feet, as follows: <br />288 <br /> “Homes with an attached garage that is set back \[100’\] feet or more <br />289 <br />o <br />from the front property line are exempt from meeting the requirements <br />290 <br />as referenced above in the first bullet point, but must meet all other <br />291 <br />requirements of Section 1004.04.A. <br />292 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />293 <br />Nays: 0 <br />294 <br />Motion carried. <br />295 <br /> <br />