2016-02-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 3, 2016 Page 8 Member Daire opined that, if changed to “SHALL” rather than “SHOULD,” the language 345 should also be accompanied by “…UNLESS OTHERWISE DETERMINED BY 346 DEVELOPMENT STAFF.” 347 Mr. Gozola agreed with that, and as noted in lines 156-157, before all requirements, it 348 was stated “…unless waived by staff.” 349 In the event real property was conveyed (lines 4170418), Member Stellmach 350 questioned if and how this applied to property ownership changing through an 351 inheritance or transfer of land without a buyer, and if those buyers were bound by 352 the overlay district as a purchaser would be. 353 Mr. Gozola responded that this language had been taken from another community 354 as drafted by their city attorney, but suggested having the Roseville City Attorney 355 take another look at this language to make sure he remained comfortable with it. 356 Member Stellmach asked how the City’s Tree Preservation and Replacement Plan 357 worked in conjunction with this language, and whether it was required for every project. 358 Mr. Gozola responded that requirements of that ordinance would apply to each site for 359 specific review. 360 In preparing for a final staging plan (line 321), Member Bull suggested that language be 361 provided similar to that of line 3352, that any deeds dedicated to the city be free of any 362 encumbrances before approval and subsequent filing; and would be more appropriate 363 after rather than before approval by the City Council. 364 Mr. Gozola advised that the intent was to protect the city, and offered to revise language 365 at the preference of the City. 366 Chair Boguszewski opined that was similar to the issues raised by Member Stellmach 367 related to “superior design” (lines 102-103) with aesthetically pleasing considerations 368 being in the eye of the beholder and subjective by nature. If staff doesn’t feel 369 comfortable fighting those battles, Chair Boguszewski noted he got the point, but didn’t 370 know if the language should be stricken accordingly or if alternative language based on 371 Mr. Gozola’s experience may provide a way to state that more objectively. 372 Mr. Gozola advised that “enhanced” may be another word, but he remained unsure of 373 whether addressing the city’s minimum landscaping preferences and use of “enhanced” 374 got to the ultimately goal being sought after. 375 Mr. Paschke stated that “enhanced” to him meant more than a minimum; and 376 “aesthetically pleasing” involved many types and varieties for landscape design. Mr. 377 Paschke offered to further wordsmith the language if so directed by the commission and 378 depending on their action tonight. 379 Chair Boguszewski asked staff to further review that section, and while it may not 380 be consistent with the surrounding area, it seemed too subjective of a term from 381 his perspective. 382 Chair Boguszewski noted another similarity with the lead-in (line 77) and desirability of 383 providing guidance in using “…new and exciting development that would otherwise be 384 possible…” 385 Member Murphy suggested striking language “and exciting” in line 77, opining that 386 wouldn’t lose anything in the intent. 387 Chair Boguszewski suggested the need to retain the word “MUST” as the springboard, 388 then remove “exciting.” 389 Member Gitzen stated he was going to suggest “innovative” versus “new and exciting.” 390 Member Murphy spoke against the term “innovative” depending on whether or not a 391 concept was actually innovative or the eighth occurrence of similar use. 392