2010-07-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 07, 2010 Page 17 1005.05 Multi-Family Design Standards 804 Significant discussion ensued regarding design standards, including comparison 805 home facades in Roseville with other communities; individual perceptions; 806 realties of garage utility and function versus design standards; diversity of those 807 designs; past development of housing stock with predominant garages and 808 whether those designs should be allowed for future construction or advocacy for 809 designing the home to be more predominant on a lot rather than the garage; 810 whether other designs, like front porches or multiple stories, should be advocated 811 for; and whether the code addressed architectural details or paint to achieve 812 criteria; and the original intent to move away from garage-centered homes. 813 Member Boerigter opined that he couldn’t support requirements to restrict 814 specific home designs in this manner, with many people having great designs for 815 home in many different ways; and spoke in opposition to telling people which 816 design elements they could choose, since everyone had a different opinion on 817 particular design elements. 818 Further discussion included determining the intent for attached garages and 819 attached garage door locations based on Page 4, paragraph G and their location 820 to the side or rear of the primary building façade to the extent feasible; and how 821 to interpret which façade was which as it related to confusions between the text 822 and sample illustrations. 823 Additional discussion clarified that the code text guided, and the pictures were 824 simply illustrative; the need to provide illustrations based on existing examples 825 within the community; intent of the primary building façade to be prominent 826 visually and functionally, with Mr. Lamb opining that there were a number of 827 examples in the City that didn’t overwhelm the front of the house; and staff 828 offering to clarify language to address expressed concerns while promoting that 829 the predominant feature on the property was that of the main structure, or the 830 dwelling itself to be the primary focus. 831 Mr. Lamb noted that the second sentence of that section addressed the intent to 832 allow front-loaded garages as long as they weren’t the dominate primary building 833 face feature. 834 Chair Doherty and Commissioners Wozniak, Gottfried, and Gisselquist were 835 supportive in general of including the proposed statement as indicated by 836 Member Wozniak in Section 1004.02 to Section 1005.05 Multi-Family Design 837 Standards; and staff was directed to incorporate the statement. 838 Mr. Paschke clarified that a building was a box with a front, rear and two sides; 839 and suggested that any additional language may only further complicate 840 interpretation. 841 By consensus, staff was directed to change the language from “façade” to 842 “primary building face” for more clarity. 843 Member Gisselquist suggested the same language be used for single and multi- 844 family residential, with the intent of the primary face. 845 MOTION 846 Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND 847 APPROVAL of the proposed new text for all Residential Districts in the City 848 of Roseville, adopting new regulations for Title 10, Zoning Regulations, 849 pertaining to all RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, as detailed in the Request for 850 Planning Commission Action dated July 7, 2010. 851 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 852