2013_0708(part 2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A E XTRACT OF THE J UNE 5,2013R OSEVILLE P LANNING C OMMISSION MEETING PROJECT FILE 0017 Request by Roseville Planning Division for ZONING TEXT CHANGES to the exterior building materials regulations in Chapters 1005, 1006, 1007, and 1008 of the City Code to clarify and refine the restriction of corrugated metal as found on typical pole buildings (PROJ-0017) Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0017 at 9:13 p.m. Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT as detailed in the staff report dated May 1, 2013, specifically in Section 5.4 of the report. Discussion included how other municipalities addressed this material category; when and how corrugated type metal materials were appropriate and when similar “pole barn” type materials were not permitted; review by staff of five (5) municipal codes in an attempt to find useful language to model; and how this language revision could impact and limit cost-effective exterior materials used for public park structures, even though they fell into the recently-developed Institutional Zoning District that included churches, schools and municipal buildings and having all of the same design requirements. Further discussion ensued among staff and members as to how and if this definition accomplished the desired goal; weight and construction qualities of industrial ribbed versus corrugated exterior materials; rationale for not specifically identifying materials now available on the market to not limit less desirable materials that may be or are presently being deve loped with new technologies , but currently without differentiation or definition; and suggested language that would better accomplish the overall goal. Consensus of the body was that more research was indicated; with staff requesting more specific direction on how to proceed and what additional information would assist them best. Further consensus was that individual members should forward any language suggestions to staff within the next two (2) weeks for staff review and consideration by the full body at a future meeting. Discussion ensued regarding wording, including architectural metal panels of a higher standard than ribbed or corrugated; random ribbed panels; examples of various materials and their applicability for the building materials section. Member Cunningham expressed confidence that some Planning Code somewhere, even outside MN, had a better summary of this material, but noted that it may require more research. Associate Planner Lloyd questioned if this material was simply a legacy regulation from its past role, and perhaps was no longer a necessary prohibition. Member Cunningham wasn’t comfortable in not having some way to address such material. Further discussion included whether there was any situation to-date where an agricultural pole building or industrial pole building application had been received, with staff responding that they were not aware of any such request to-date; instances where in the fu ture some industrial projects could come forward seeking to use a less expensive grade of corrugated metal siding, which staff had so far indicated as inappropriate in the City of Roseville; and clarifying whether the issue was with the pole framing or siding itself, with staff clarifying that the siding itself by defacto was called out as pole or barn siding, and definitely not a product wanted in any commercial, industrial, office or residential area in Roseville, with the attempt to define what the exemption should be and what materials were actually allowable, with current City Code offering no guidance. Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to promote high quality design and aesthetic considerations, not storage other than land use cla ssifications currently allow. Additional discussion included the variety of names in the current metal panel industry for very similar products based on their specification sheets, and future products as well; whether there was a performance standard that would be applicable (e.g. percentage of metal siding allowed, or weight tolerance of that siding based on thickness and strength); and wind standards dictating structural performance standards, but not necessarily all providing aesthetically pleasing buildings.