2010-11-17_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 Page 11 came along and didn’t fit with those standards, a code amendment could then be 513 processes, using wind turbines as another example. 514 Member Cook and Vice Chair Boerigter concurred that the proposed standards 515 allowed for considerable and generous flexibility for solar installations. 516 Member Wozniak reiterated his support in relying on staff’s expertise allowing for 517 flexibility for solar technology. 518 Further discussion ensued related to Seasonal Outdoor Sales (line 1321) and 519 consistencies in the current and proposed permitting processes; various types of 520 outdoor sales and those of a seasonal nature; with the new code providing 521 additional clarification to allow staff to more consistently enforce and regulate 522 annual outdoor sales on certain properties. 523 Vice Chair Boerigter opined that a temporary event (line 1339) seemed vague to 524 him; with staff noting that the permits were applied more to industrial and 525 industrial zoned rather than residential zones, with the exception of churches or 526 other institutional uses needing to follow permitting regulations as clarified in the 527 new code. 528 Member Cook noted line 205 regarding fencing of play areas; with Mr. Paschke 529 indicating that the language in that section should be stricken, as it was applied 530 elsewhere in the code. 531 At the request of Commissioners, Mr. Paschke clarified that essential services 532 (line 209) was consistent with current code, and was applicable and permitted 533 within all districts. 534 Public Comment 535 Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 8:50 p.m., with no one 536 appearing for or against. 537 Member Cook sought a historical specifics and rationale for including the 538 extensive section on tree preservation and restoration. 539 Mr. Paschke advised that it was something that citizens and elected official had 540 desired for some time; and this zoning code rewrite provided an opportunity to 541 craft one through the overall review of model codes and ordinances, and was 542 parts of the sum total of many of those models, and addressing those 543 preferences expressed through the Imagine Roseville 2025 and Comprehensive 544 Plan update processes, and legitimized conditions applied by staff in the past 545 with new developments and/or redevelopment and related to screening, 546 buffering, or landscaping in an effort to encourage preservation of or additional 547 green space in the community. 548 Vice Chair Boerigter noted that the key was that this didn’t impair the ability of a 549 single-family residential property owner making changes to their landscaping on 550 their private property. 551 Mr. Paschke advised that it didn’t prohibit businesses either, since it was tied to 552 development or redevelopment of property. 553 Vice Chair Boerigter, while supportive of the general provisions, expressed his 554 concern with the new section related to the screening and distance requirements 555 for portable restrooms, similar to his concerns expressed for the Parks and 556 Recreation District for screening of waste storage facilities. Vice Chair Boerigter 557 noted that portable restroom facilities were a fairly accepted use and were 558 somewhat transitory or seasonal in nature; and altering their use with limited 559 forethought or input from various stakeholders, may create unintended 560 consequences, while attempting to determine their placement without a more 561 systematic review. Vice Chair Boerigter noted that most of the code sections 562 allowed for nonconformities, and that by not doing so in this section, the City may 563