2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 12 Member Gitzen noted his concern was whether they were consistent specific to the 543 cancellation talked about when approved. 544 Mr. Paschke clarified that pre-existing or old PUD’s didn’t necessarily have agreements 545 and were approved much differently than today’s PUD’s that were typically subject to 546 conditions, most of which would have been met. If there was a need in an existing PUD 547 for a condition yet to be met, or still needed, Mr. Paschke stated compared to those 548 approved today, then Mr. Paschke stated that yes, it made sense to cancel those PUD’s 549 allowing them to function under the general zoning ordinance and no longer needing a 550 PUD to amend if already covered in current code. However, Mr. Paschke noted that 551 each of those would need to be reviewed independently; and the question answered 552 whether if cancelled did it comply with today’s requirements. Mr. Paschke noted that 553 there may be some out there better served cancelled and addressed in ways other than 554 through a PUD. Mr. Paschke noted that staff may not consider a PUD if they don’t have 555 conditions applied to them, or nothing binding, with zoning there forever and a day; and 556 opined that it would clear up confusions and misconceptions. 557 Mr. Paschke advised that staff, as well as the City Attorney, were in agreement with the 558 cancellation language as presented. 559 Ayes: 6 560 Nays: 0 561 Motion carried. 562 Chair Boguszewski noted this was scheduled to go before the City Council at their 563 February 22, 2016 meeting; and tonight’s meeting minutes would be included as part of 564 the meeting materials as available. 565 Chair Boguszewski again thanked Mr. Gozola for his work; and Mr. Gozola expressed 566 his pleasure in working with the Commission as well. 567 b. PROJECT FILE 0017, Amendment 28 568 Request by the Community Development Department to consider Zoning Code 569 Text Amendments to Roseville City Code related to building materials for 570 Chapters 1004 (Residential Districts); 1004 (Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts); 571 1006 (Employment Districts); and 1007 (Institutional Districts) 572 C hair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Project File 0017 at 8:14 p.m. 573 City Planner Thomas Paschke provided a brief summary of the request as detailed in 574 the staff report dated February 3, 2016. Mr. Paschke noted that these amendments 575 were based on actual use and supported the use of new technologies available for 576 concrete fiber board and its application as a new building material in residential exterior 577 uses and the number of variances being requested allowing its use. Mr. Paschke noted 578 that without these text amendments related to building materials as noted and detailed 579 in the staff report, it left staff in a vulnerable position for approving materials. 580 Discussion ensued related to the specifics of this material; material specifications (e.g. 581 bare concrete versus stained or pre-colored treatments or raw industrial materials); and 582 definition of exterior wall versus an interior wall serving a courtyard and referred to under 583 code as a fence or enclosure and not part of the building’s “box.” 584 Member Daire referenced line 155 and combination of materials for exterior wall finishes 585 and its implications; and language deleted in Section 10502.f (line 159) removing that 586 wording, but inconsistent with lines 171 and 183. 587 Mr. Paschke noted this was an error in the draft, and language should have been 588 stricken in lines 171 and 183 as well. 589 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke clarified that the way code language was 590 currently set up, it was not possible to use one material, but design standards required 591 different articulations requiring a combination and providing some variety and 592 addressing where specific materials are used in a particular design element. 593