CC_Minutes_2014_0707 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 7, 2014 Page 30 the motion as long as it acknowledgedthat there were certain hardships in practi- cal use. Councilmember Laliberte noted that the issue could be taken back to the Planning Commission seeking their feedback on whether this action took away from what they were trying to achieve, even though it allowed more flexibility which ap- peared to be their intent. Councilmember Willmus opined that Councilmember McGehee's idea was inter- esting in some areas of town with large lots and home setbacks of 100' or more, and he could see exceptions for those situations and hoped that consideration could enter into the process and be addressed adequately. Mayor Roe noted that the Planning Commission could return with a recommenda- tion based on tonight's discussion. Roll Call Ayes: Willmus; Laliberte; Etten; and Roe. Nays: McGehee. Motion carried. Councilmember Willmus supported the intent of the Planning Commission, opin- ing that they were onto something that needed further consideration; noting that there were a number of large lots in town that needed design allowances specific to them and not based on standard designs. Mayor Roe agreed that it was not just the depth or setback, but other factors as well; and agreed that it was something that should be given further consideration. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with the comment of Councilmember Willmus; opining that the first step had been taken in revising the current text, and the Plan- ning Commission would be prudent in light of tonight's discussion and this ac- tion. b. Discussion Section 1011.04 Tree Preservation and Restoration in all Districts Community Development Director Bilotta summarized the current tree preserva- tion and restoration section of City Code (Section 1011.04) and its various ele- ments as addressed in the RCA dated July 7, 2014 and Attachment A; seeking City Council feedback. After spending time with the City's Forester Technician, Councilmember Etten advised that his push for this to come back for alteration was based on his find- ings that the Technician operated under a different ordinance and set of codes for the City of Roseville. Councilmember Etten opined that this was the problem in having two different departments with different standards. In questioning if the