2012_1022_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B EXTRACTION OF THE OCTOBER 3, ZO12 ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES b. PLANNING FILE 0017 Request by the Planning Division to amend the permitted uses chart of Table 1005- 1 to include Limited Production/Processing Vice Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for File 0017 at approximately 6:44 p.m. City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, based on actual use of the updated Zoning Ordinance, and issues during its actual application related to non-conforming uses that are being found to create limitations on use and reinvestment for existing structures and their potential re-use. Two specific areas addressed by Mr. Paschke included areas north and west of Rosedale Mall and County Road B-2. Staff's analysis was detailed in the Request for Planning Commission Action dated October 3, 2012. At the request of Vice Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the requested text amendments were all based on actual usage after the Comprehensive Plan had been updated followed by the updated Zoning Code, and not prompted by any specific citizen and/or business request. Mr. Paschke advised that, even during updating of the various documents, several areas had been identified for monitoring based on their historical use and operations; and noted that those areas had continued under review. Mr. Paschke clarified that staff had fielded calls from area realtors on potential tenants in some buildings that they found problematic based on limited uses or uses that could be deemed on-conforming. Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that it made sense to expand permitted uses as recommended by staff when those uses were found not to be that impactful to a Zoning District. At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke advised that, based on operations, staff determined limited uses versus unlimited use or limited production versus normal/heavy production, as defined in City Code as it related to other definitions and higher levels of manufacturing/production. At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke advised that, concerns of those permitted uses growing into larger uses that would negatively impact a specific Zoning District were negligible since these areas typically involved smaller areas within multi-tenant buildings, averaging 5,000 square feet or less. Mr. Paschke noted that this would further dictate if a use remained appropriate or if a new location was needed for that use. At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke reviewed the definition and distinctions of industrial processing of raw materials, usually larger operations, rather than this application. Mr. Lloyd provided several examples; clarifying permitted uses could include a small brewery with limited production versus a prohibited use such as smelting iron or producing heavy kinds of products from those raw materials. Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that high end manufacturing would not be a permitted use (e.g. potato chip production); with the cost per outfit used as part of the determination for permitted versus unpermitted uses. At the request of Member Strohmeier, staff provided additional types of operations that would become permitted uses with these text amendments, including but not limited to: small tool and die facility; receiving products for repackaging and distribution (e.g. Fastenal); and the distinction between production, processing and assembly. Mr.