2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 17 review those options, speaking in support of tabling action if that was the desire of the 812 Commission. 813 MOTION 814 Member Stellmach moved, seconded by Member Cunningham, to TABLE this item 815 to a date not specific for staff to provide a revised proposal for consideration in the 816 near future. 817 Mr. Paschke noted that this had come to the Commission as a recommendation; 818 however, the purpose was to move it forward with majority support, and commended the 819 Commission for choosing to take this step allowing further consideration. 820 Member Stellmach opined that he could understand having greater flexibility for 821 properties 50’ back or more, but the staff recommendation as written was too broad. 822 Member Boguszewski opined that staff’s first recommendation (line 89( should still apply, 823 but he was not sure if it also applied to the entire Section 1004.05A. 824 Ayes: 5 825 Nays: 1 (Olsen) 826 Motion carried. 827 Member Cunningham requested, when this item returned, that the 2030 Comprehensive 828 Plan and Imagine Roseville 2025 documents, apparently guiding this standard, be 829 provided to the Commission for their review and as a context for that consideration, and 830 whether this is the best choice for Roseville. Member Cunningham also requested that 831 staff provide photos of home designs currently not in compliance with this language, 832 representing those that were and those not aesthetically pleasing. Member Cunningham 833 opined that, if offering some exceptions in the future, it would be nice to have examples 834 available, if the goal was to make the front façade more aesthetically pleasing. 835 Member Olsen spoke in support of Member Cunningham’s request; opining that it was 836 difficult to make judgment calls on the integrity of one design over another; suggesting 837 that such an attempt went beyond the role of the Planning Commission, most of whom 838 were not qualified as architects. 839 Member Stellmach expressed his desire to talk to his neighbors to get their input before 840 the next discussion. 841 Mr. Paschke advised that the attempt was not necessarily to address the architectural 842 features of a home, only the garage itself; and opined that staff didn’t find those 843 standards inappropriate, and through working with a variety of sources, these design 844 standards were intended to be broad and general for residential home design. Mr. 845 Paschke strongly disagreed that the attempt was to try to eliminate “ugly,” but in trying to 846 craft legislation for the benefit of overall community goals, he clarified that it was a task of 847 the Commission to nitpick or be tedious with the details for things that became policies in 848 the community in which they lived. Even in recognizing that in creating those rules and 849 regulations within that legislative process there may be some missteps or stumbling, Mr. 850 Paschke opined that the majority, not personal individual feelings, still ruled. Mr. Paschke 851 advised that staff would do their best based on tonight’s discussion, and would attempt 852 some photos to indicate those things being attempted in the comprehensive plan and 853 community vision documents that needed changing. 854 Adjourn 6. 855 Chair Gisselquist adjourned at approximately 9:25 p.m. 856