|
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 6, 2013
<br />Page 6
<br />Chair Boerigter opined that United Rental equipment may be acceptable based on its condition;
<br />248
<br />however, if a business stored four (4) old, rusty forklifts behind their building in an Industrial
<br />249
<br />District that were no longer used, it seems that they should be classified as nuisance outdoor
<br />250
<br />storage that the City wouldn’t want, or need to be well-screened. Chair Boerigter questioned if
<br />251
<br />this brought up the display element again: rent/buy as opposed to disused equipment.
<br />252
<br />Member Olsen noted previous discussions at the Planning Commission of antique boats in
<br />253
<br />someone’s yard that may be for sale someday, and questioned if that fell into this discussion.
<br />254
<br />Member Olsen thought it ran along the same idea that it was stored and highly visible.
<br />255
<br />Mr. Lloyd advised that that use was broader than his intent for this discussion, as that was in a
<br />256
<br />Residential District, and this discussion was for Commercial Districts.
<br />257
<br />Mr. Paschke advised that, specific to United Rentals, they would fit into the neighborhood of auto
<br />258
<br />dealerships, but they would not fit across from Rosedale, since they were storing and displaying
<br />259
<br />things on site.
<br />260
<br />Chair Boerigter noted other uses in the Regional Business District, such as hardware, grocery or
<br />261
<br />convenience stores that could be immediately adjacent to residential properties and the need to
<br />262
<br />restrict or regulate outside storage in those areas. However, Chair Boerigter questioned if that
<br />263
<br />was any less desirable than a dumpster located there, and it may depend on the type, quantity
<br />264
<br />and amount of storage.
<br />265
<br />Member Olsen concurred.
<br />266
<br />Mr. Paschke, based on that analogy, suggested “out-of-sight, out-of-mind,” indicating it’s
<br />267
<br />screened per code regulations. From an annual or temporary basis, Mr. Paschke suggested that
<br />268
<br />there should be processes for businesses to go through, requiring more restrictions. However,
<br />269
<br />Mr. Paschke noted that tonight’s discussion was based on bigger items on a much broader scale,
<br />270
<br />and if and how to revise code related to those larger items. Mr. Paschke advised that staff was
<br />271
<br />running into problems determining what constituted an outdoor storage and display, and how and
<br />272
<br />what type of screening was needed in Commercial Districts or if it should be based on the use,
<br />273
<br />location and how to bundle that into requirements.
<br />274
<br />Chair Boerigter suggested that staff provide photos from Roseville of specific examples, or form
<br />275
<br />other communities that would provide examples, both good and bad, allowing for further
<br />276
<br />discussion on how to distinguish between them and where they should be located, and allowing
<br />277
<br />better review of what was and was not wanted in Roseville and providing staff and the
<br />278
<br />Commission with good language for a possible text amendment. Chair Boerigter opined that
<br />279
<br />some would be easy to define, while others not so much; but he opined that the distinction
<br />280
<br />between “display” versus “storage” was of great import.
<br />281
<br />Member Boguszewski noted that there was always an exception to the rule, and from his
<br />282
<br />perspective, display indicated finished goods or an example of actual items for sale or rent, not
<br />283
<br />necessarily crated, but potentially so.
<br />284
<br />Chair Boerigter brought up an exception to that perspective, opining that gravel and mulch were
<br />285
<br />also finished goods, but not desirable in many instances; to which Member Boguszewski
<br />286
<br />concurred.
<br />287
<br />Member Cunningham concurred with Chair Boerigter’s definition.
<br />288
<br />Mr. Lloyd noted that there remained a number of grey areas. As an example, Mr. Lloyd noted
<br />289
<br />past consideration by staff of a company that produced residential siding materials and shingles,
<br />290
<br />and needed approval for outdoor storage for pallets of those materials outside the building. While
<br />291
<br />this application worked out well for them, Mr. Lloyd advised that it was the type of issue,
<br />292
<br />regardless of whether finished goods were stored outside the building or it was outdoor storage,
<br />293
<br />and if screening height and emergency access could be met, it could be allowed through a
<br />294
<br />Conditional Use Permit process, allowing for extra review before approval.
<br />295
<br />Chair Boerigter opined that the location of a use was of vital importance, and while it may be
<br />296
<br />appropriate in a Regional Business District if standards were met, it was not appropriate next to a
<br />297
<br />residence, but should be located in an area more appropriate for that type of use.
<br />298
<br />
<br />
|