Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
605 Additional discussion included clarifying the City Attorney's recommendations related to criteria <br /> 606 in the sidebar related to design standards for home and/or multi family structure facades and <br /> 1607 amount of coverage to allow more flexibility. <br /> 1608 Member Boerigter proposed removing that design standard, expressing his opposition in <br /> 1609 supporting the code based specifically on that language being included. Member Boerigter opined <br /> 1610 that it made no sense, and he remained unconvinced, that garage doors impacted pedestrian <br /> 1611 friendly amenities in any way; and spoke in opposition to telling homeowners or developers how <br /> 1612 to design homes. <br /> 1613 Mr. Lamb advised that the general intent was that the garage not be the primary facade to the <br /> 1614 street; and advised that most of the sidebars were meant as an explanation of the text and not <br /> 1615 adopted into code. <br /> 1616 Discussion ensued regarding intent, perceptions, and how the proposed language supported or <br /> 1617 didn't support that intent as it related to facades, and whether the sidebar should be removed in its <br /> 1618 entirety; and whether the text of the code and the sidebar were in sync and how they would be <br /> 1619 interpreted; with each individual Commissioner providing their own interpretation of the sidebar <br /> 1620 criteria. <br /> 1621 Discussion ensued regarding eliminating criteria in C entirely, with Member Boerigter supporting <br /> 1622 removal of garage requirements completely; and the majority of Members supporting more <br /> 1623 specific language in the sidebar for B (Page 5) with the garage. <br /> 1624 Further discussion included the types of physical constraints, such as steep slopes or mature trees <br /> 10 625 in the rear yard; and how to avoid being perceived as arbitrary. <br /> 1626 Mr. Paschke suggested that the Commission vote on this issue specifically, as opposed to voting <br /> 1627 down the entire ordinance due to this one item. <br /> 1628 50% Full Lot Coverage <br /> 1629 Discussion included the infrequent need for this regulation as previously discussed; with <br /> 1630 members and staff concurred that 50% was an appropriate threshold. <br /> 1631 1005.05 Multi- Family Design Standards <br /> 1632 Significant discussion ensued regarding design standards, including comparison home facades in <br /> 1633 Roseville with other communities; individual perceptions; realties of garage utility and function <br /> 1634 versus design standards; diversity of those designs; past development of housing stock with <br /> 1635 predominant garages and whether those designs should be allowed for future construction or <br /> 1636 advocacy for designing the home to be more predominant on a lot rather than the garage; whether <br /> 1637 other designs, like front porches or multiple stories, should be advocated for; and whether the <br /> 1638 code addressed architectural details or paint to achieve criteria; and the original intent to move <br /> 1639 away from garage- centered homes. <br /> 1640 Member Boerigter opined that he couldn't support requirements to restrict specific home designs <br /> 1641 in this manner, with many people having great designs for home in many different ways; and <br /> 1642 spoke in opposition to telling people which design elements they could choose, since everyone <br /> 1643 had a different opinion on particular design elements. <br /> 410 <br />