2013_0708(part 2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B E XTRACT OF THE J UNE 5,2013R OSEVILLE P LANNING C OMMISSION MINUTES g. PROJECT FILE 13-0017 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT CHANGES to multiple sections regarding building height and performance standards for accessory buildings on commercial properties Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at approximately 7:30 p.m. City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT as detailed in the staff report dated June 5, 2013. Mr. Paschke reviewed how staff had arrived at the lack of any scientific approach for proposing 500 square feet, other than to provide a fairly good size for typical storage shed, approximately twice that of a residential shed, based on the types of items that may be stored (e.g. snow plows or snow blowers, lawn mowers, or landscaping or maintenance equipment). Member Daire questioned if the proposed size would be sufficient to accommodate a small forklift for transporting goods from the accessory building, even though the intent was for storage in a Commercial District versus storing things intended for sale within the principle structure but temporarily stored in the accessory building. Mr. Paschke opined that a forklift should fit within the square footage and height limitations, as well as lifts for changing light bulbs, etc.). Mr. Paschke advised that staff had not given any grandiose thought to how the storage buildings could be utilized other than for storage, and had been more concerned in providing storage for maintenance equipment for office and commercial buildings using their own staff for lawn and snow main tenance versus that of hiring a commercial vendor, and would therefore need somewhere to store that equipment to avoid transporting it from off-site. While there was nothing that excluded using the accessory building for storage of product, Mr. Paschke clarified that there was only one (1) accessory structure allowed, so in multi-tenant buildings (e.g. strip malls) there would be very limited storage for tenants; and suggested a more common use would be by t he building’s owner for storage of maintenance equipment. In the case of a restaurant, Member Daire questioned if the accessory building would be separate from or include dumpster storage. Mr. Paschke responded that, if a new restaurant wanted an accessory structure and refuse/recycling areas in sepa rate locations, staff would work with them; but clarified that City Code would allow for only one (1) building with one (1) door. Mr. Paschke advised that the building may include dumpster storage, but was also an allowable use. At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Pa schke advised that if a building owner required more storage square footage or height for the bu ilding, they would need to seek that through the Variance Boar as a Conditional Use; and that should only be for a rare or unique situation or need. Member Boguszewski suggested the possibility of surveying other municipalities for their rationale on accessory building square footage if that was feasible or even necessary; however, he advised that he was not advocating for that, as long as there was a process in place to accommodate any variances, even though agreeing they should be rare. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had arrived at th e 500 square feet as a minimal allowance above and beyond that of the residential, two-store gara ge square footage of 480 square feet for a