CC_Minutes_2010_1213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

83 for multi family design standards to have parking area between the street and front of the multi 84 family structure and how that would address handicapped and/or guest parking amenities, as well 85 as building security concerns, if not in close to the primary entrance., 86 In Section 1003.06, the statement of purpose was discussed for the public versus private realm in 87 how to address a more pedestrian friendly environment; connections with a lack of visual appeal 88 for pedestrians when vehicles are parked in front of garages based on a prevalent philosophy in 89 planning over the last few decades and included in the Comprehensive Plan statements noting that 90 streets are not just for cars, houses are not just where cars live, but they create a welcoming 91 appearance from the street and encourage people to walk; design formulas for alley loaded or 92 side loaded garages or recessed behind the front plane of the house; and whether the code should 93 require those design elements or let other forces make that determination. 94 Commissioner Gisselquist opined that one of the charms of the Roseville was the different 95 designs and questioned whether that should be legislated, even though monotonous designs or 96 tracts were not appealing. 97 Further discussion included how best to soften design standards versus garage- dominated 98 structures that don't wear well over time in today's housing market; clarification that the design 99 standards apply to new construction; expansion of existing code specific to 1 -2 family building 100 applications (duplexes in low density); pervious and impervious lot coverage with new 101 technologies and options for buildings and paving to accommodate rainwater infiltration; more 102 definition of a reasonable amount of coverage on a given lot based on actual and perceived 103 indicators; and the need for more illustrations and examples to address alternatives to cul -de -sacs �04 with large residential lots running perpendicular to the street (i.e., courtyard arrangement) to 105 accommodate green space, common areas, and emergency vehicle access. 106 Additional discussion included the rationale for imposing a height restriction in R -7 Districts to 107 address newer multi family projects, currently done through the PUD process, to ensure that 108 Roseville won't have buildings exceeding 6 -10 stories; revision and simplification of the current 109 height restriction based on the number of bedrooms; and the advocacy points of the City's 110 Pathway and Sidewalk Master Plan for sidewalks to be included in the subdivision ordinance. 111 Commissioners were encouraged to provide additional comments via e-mail to staff for 112 incorporation into the document as appropriate and before the open house. 113 Concluding discussion included process questions for those items deemed by a majority of the 114 Commission to need further revisions or more clarification. 115 Commercial Districts Discussion Outline 116 Ms. Rhees provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, for initial 117 discussion of the Commercial District. 118 Chair Doherty expressed concern in the language "limited scale," rather than "limited range in the 119 Neighborhood Business District section. 120 Ms. Rhees noted that this language was taken from the City's Comprehensive Plan; but after 121 further discussion, advised that the language would be changed in future drafts.