Laserfiche WebLink
1644 Further discussion included determining the intent for attached garages and attached garage door 0 <br /> 1645 <br /> 1646 <br /> 1647 <br /> 1648 <br /> 1649 <br /> 1650 <br /> 1651 <br /> 1652 <br /> 1653 <br /> 1654 <br /> 1655 <br /> 1656 <br /> 1657 <br /> 1658 <br /> 1659 <br /> 1660 <br /> 1661 <br /> 1662 <br /> 1663 <br /> 1664 <br /> 1665 <br /> 1666 <br /> locations based on Page 4, paragraph G and their location to the side or rear of the primary <br /> building fagade to the extent feasible; and how to interpret which facade was which as it related <br /> to confusions between the text and sample illustrations. <br /> Additional discussion clarified that the code text guided, and the pictures were simply illustrative; <br /> the need to provide illustrations based on existing examples within the community; intent of the <br /> primary building facade to be prominent visually and functionally, with Mr. Lamb opining that <br /> there were a number of examples in the City that didn't overwhelm the front of the house; and <br /> staff offering to clarify language to address expressed concerns while promoting that the <br /> predominant feature on the property was that of the main structure, or the dwelling itself to be the <br /> primary focus. <br /> Mr. Lamb noted that the second sentence of that section addressed the intent to allow front loaded <br /> garages as long as they weren't the dominate primary building face feature. <br /> Chair Doherty and Commissioners Wozniak, Gottfried, and Gisselquist were supportive in <br /> general of including the proposed statement as indicated by Member Wozniak in Section 1004.02 <br /> to Section 1005.05 Multi Family Design Standards; and staff was directed to incorporate the <br /> statement. <br /> Mr. Paschke clarified that a building was a box with a front, rear and two sides; and suggested <br /> that any additional language may only further complicate interpretation. <br /> By consensus, staff was directed to change the language from "facade" to "primary building face" <br /> for more clarity. <br /> Member Gisselquist suggested the same language be used for single and multi family residential, <br /> with the intent of the primary face. <br /> 1667 <br /> 1668 <br /> 1669 <br /> 1670 <br /> 1671 <br /> MOTION <br /> Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND APPROVAL <br /> of the proposed new text for all Residential Districts in the City of Roseville, adopting new <br /> regulations for Title 10, Zoning Regulations, pertaining to all RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, <br /> as detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated July 7, 2010. <br /> 1672 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT <br /> 1673 MOTION <br /> 1674 Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Doherty to RECOMMEND a FRIENDLY <br /> 1675 AMENDMENT to the original motion as follows: <br /> 1676 o Remove language related to attached garages, Sections 1005.05 G and 1005.06 regarding <br /> 1677 design standards for one and two-family with staff directed to provide further <br /> 1678 modifications consistent with tonight's discussion, rewrite that section for future <br /> 1679 consideration by the Planning Commission for re- inclusion in the document in areas as <br /> 1680 appropriate. <br /> 1681 o G would say "Attached Garages" on the draft, but provide no descriptive language <br /> 1682 following the heading for consideration by the Planning Commission for re- inclusion in <br /> 1683 the document 0 <br />