My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013_0325_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2013
>
2013_0325_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2013 4:00:22 PM
Creation date
3/21/2013 4:18:47 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
184
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment B <br />EO3,2012 <br />XTRACTION OF THE CTOBER <br />RPCMM <br />OSEVILLE LANNING OMMISSION EETING INUTES <br />b. PLANNING FILE 0017 <br />Request by the Planning Division to amend the permitted uses chart of Table 1005- <br />1 to include Limited Production/Processing <br />Vice Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for File 0017 at approximately 6:44 <br />p.m. <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request for amendments to the Zoning <br />Ordinance, based on actual use of the updated Zoning Ordinance, and issues during its <br />actual application related to non-conforming uses that are being found to create <br />limitations on use and reinvestment for existing structures and their potential re-use. Two <br />specific areas addressed by Mr. Paschke included areas north and west of Rosedale Mall <br />and County Road B-2. Staff’s analysis was detailed in the Request for Planning <br />Commission Action dated October 3, 2012. <br />At the request of Vice Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the requested text <br />amendments were all based on actual usage after the Comprehensive Plan had been <br />updated followed by the updated Zoning Code, and not prompted by any specific citizen <br />and/or business request. Mr. Paschke advised that, even during updating of the various <br />documents, several areas had been identified for monitoring based on their historical use <br />and operations; and noted that those areas had continued under review. Mr. Paschke <br />clarified that staff had fielded calls from area realtors on potential tenants in some <br />buildings that they found problematic based on limited uses or uses that could be <br />deemed on-conforming. Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that it made sense to expand <br />permitted uses as recommended by staff when those uses were found not to be that <br />impactful to a Zoning District. <br />At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke advised that, based on operations, staff <br />determined limited uses versus unlimited use or limited production versus normal/heavy <br />production, as defined in City Code as it related to other definitions and higher levels of <br />manufacturing/production. <br />At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke advised that, concerns of those permitted <br />uses growing into larger uses that would negatively impact a specific Zoning District were <br />negligible since these areas typically involved smaller areas within multi-tenant buildings, <br />averaging 5,000 square feet or less. Mr. Paschke noted that this would further dictate if a <br />use remained appropriate or if a new location was needed for that use. <br />At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Paschke reviewed the definition and distinctions of <br />industrial processing of raw materials, usually larger operations, rather than this <br />application. <br />Mr. Lloyd provided several examples; clarifying permitted uses could include a small <br />brewery with limited production versus a prohibited use such as smelting iron or <br />producing heavy kinds of products from those raw materials. <br />Mr. Paschke concurred, noting that high end manufacturing would not be a permitted use <br />(e.g. potato chip production); with the cost per outfit used as part of the determination for <br />permitted versus unpermitted uses. <br />At the request of Member Strohmeier, staff provided additional types of operations that <br />would become permitted uses with these text amendments, including but not limited to: <br />small tool and die facility; receiving products for repackaging and distribution (e.g. <br />Fastenal); and the distinction between production, processing and assembly. Mr. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.