Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 6, 2013 <br />Page 7 <br />Mr. Paschke suggested that consideration of a permitted use adjacent to a residential area may <br />299 <br />require an extra process; but if in an Industrial or Regional Business District, if you met certain <br />300 <br />standards, it could be approved administratively by permit without a more formalized process. <br />301 <br />Chair Boerigter concurred with Mr. Paschke on that suggestion. <br />302 <br />Mr. Lloyd, using the flip side of that example and using United Rentals again, advised that as they <br />303 <br />sought areas for relocation of their business in Roseville, one site they had identified was <br />304 <br />adjacent to auto dealerships, and while it may be an appropriate use in an Industrial area as <br />305 <br />zoned, it would not be appropriate across the street from Rosedale. Mr. Lloyd noted that using <br />306 <br />the Conditional Use approval process allowed location to be taken into consideration, and <br />307 <br />provides for a scale for screening depending on how appropriate it was in that particular <br />308 <br />environment. <br />309 <br />Chair Boerigter concurred. <br />310 <br />At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Paschke responded that it was a <br />311 <br />frequent problem throughout the year, and had continued to be so for a number of years, not just <br />312 <br />with the recent code revision, advising that outdoor storage was always a concern in industrial <br />313 <br />and commercial districts in Roseville. <br />314 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that it was especially a hot topic for properties currently on the market, thus <br />315 <br />staff’s attempt to get a handle on the direction preferred. <br />316 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that since 2010 when the entire city was rezoned for consistency with the <br />317 <br />updated Comprehensive Plan, those calls and concerns had significantly increased because the <br />318 <br />zoning had changed on a number of properties. <br />319 <br />Member Olsen concurred with Chair Boerigter’s suggestion for visual examples of good and/or <br />320 <br />problem areas or things coming up for staff relative to the spectrum of possibilities for future <br />321 <br />review. Member Olsen opined that the difference in storage and display was a huge delineator <br />322 <br />and uses seemed to have the biggest impact on decisions. <br />323 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that just those two points had proven of great benefit to him in tonight’s <br />324 <br />discussion. <br />325 <br />At the request of Member Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke advised that the next step would be for staff <br />326 <br />to take tonight’s discussion back to the drawing board, provide a visual survey and information, <br />327 <br />and then return to the Commission for more comments and discussion, preliminary to a future <br />328 <br />proposal. <br />329 <br />Chair Boerigter also suggesting reviewing other city codes with similar or higher uses in various <br />330 <br />districts. <br />331 <br />7. Adjourn <br />332 <br />Chair Boerigter adjourned at approximately 7:25 p.m. <br />333 <br />