2010-03-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 03, 2010 Page 9 406 versus design criteria with unintentional inflexible tones for interpretation by the zoning 407 administrator. 408 Further discussion included definition of a multi-family building and complex related to 409 townhomes; clarification of exterior materials and/or color compatibility for garden and/or 410 accessory structures; wind towers and solar panels included in a separate “supplemental 411 regulations” portion of the code currently being drafted; height determinations (Table 412 1003.1) for midpoint of roof trusses; and definition of height included in the definition 413 section based on Building Code definitions. 414 Additional discussion included modifications to Page 3, Section 1003.04 for front yard 415 setbacks and averages for a new home and based on Comprehensive Plan guidance to 416 create a more pedestrian-friendly environment by bringing buildings closer to the street; 417 with clarification that setbacks can be less than the required thirty feet (30’) if averaged 418 with those existing adjacent properties; preferences to avoid the “garage with attached 419 house” design element; and the intent for multi-family design standards to have parking 420 area between the street and front of the multi-family structure and how that would 421 address handicapped and/or guest parking amenities, as well as building security 422 concerns, if not in close to the primary entrance. 423 In Section 1003.06, the statement of purpose was discussed for the public versus private 424 realm in how to address a more pedestrian-friendly environment; connections with a lack 425 of visual appeal for pedestrians when vehicles are parked in front of garages based on a 426 prevalent philosophy in planning over the last few decades and included in the 427 Comprehensive Plan statements noting that streets are not just for cars, houses are not 428 just where cars live, but they create a welcoming appearance from the street and 429 encourage people to walk; design formulas for alley-loaded or side-loaded garages or 430 recessed behind the front plane of the house; and whether the code should require those 431 design elements or let other forces make that determination. 432 Commissioner Gisselquist opined that one of the charms of the Roseville was the 433 different designs and questioned whether that should be legislated, even though 434 monotonous designs or tracts were not appealing. 435 Further discussion included how best to soften design standards versus garage- 436 dominated structures that don’t wear well over time in today’s housing market; 437 clarification that the design standards apply to new construction; expansion of existing 438 code specific to 1-2 family building applications (duplexes in low density); pervious and 439 impervious lot coverage with new technologies and options for buildings and paving to 440 accommodate rainwater infiltration; more definition of a reasonable amount of coverage 441 on a given lot based on actual and perceived indicators; and the need for more 442 illustrations and examples to address alternatives to cul-de-sacs with large residential lots 443 running perpendicular to the street (i.e., courtyard arrangement) to accommodate green 444 space, common areas, and emergency vehicle access. 445 Additional discussion included the rationale for imposing a height restriction in R-7 446 Districts to address newer multi-family projects, currently done through the PUD process, 447 to ensure that Roseville won’t have buildings exceeding 6-10 stories; revision and 448 simplification of the current height restriction based on the number of bedrooms; and the 449 advocacy points of the City’s Pathway and Sidewalk Master Plan for sidewalks to be 450 included in the subdivision ordinance. 451 Commissioners were encouraged to provide additional comments via e-mail to staff for 452 incorporation into the document as appropriate and before the open house. 453 Concluding discussion included process questions for those items deemed by a majority 454 of the Commission to need further revisions or more clarification. 455 Commercial Districts Discussion Outline 456 Ms. Rhees provided a bench handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, for 457 initial discussion of the Commercial District.