2013_0708(part 2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B E XTRACT OF THE J UNE 5,2013,R OSEVILLE P LANNING C OMMISSION MEETING PROJECT FILE 13-0017 Request by Roseville Planning Division for approval of 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 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at approximately 8:00 p.m. City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT as detailed in the staff report dated June 5, 2013. While not confident that it was a simple solution, Mr. Paschke advised that staff had determined to not even identify corrugated metal in the definition after reviewing different models from other municipalities. Mr. Paschke advised that those models, many with similar language to current Roseville code, did not provide any good clarity; and even though several models had been found without that particular reference as well, but got to the heart of what was being attempted as the preferred accomplishments. Mr. Paschke referenced Section 5.3 of the report and the proposed broadened material based, while offering some limitations for accent materials as well. At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke confirmed that various plans reviewed by staff did include requests for corrugated siding; and when staff requested the specification sheet, if it says anything about corrugated metal, it can’t be used. While it may be splitting hairs for products currently available, Mr. Paschke noted staff’s desire to make sure there was enough sp ecificity to address architectural metal siding of a thicker mill and different design, but still ribbed, versus corrugated metal. Mr. Paschke opined that this provided protection to prevent the major portion of a building or accessory structure having that type of material and clarified the attempts of staff to address building elevations. Considerable discussion ensued related to the definition of standard “aluminum siding,” preferences for commercial buildings to look different than residential buildings for aesthetic purposes and distinctions; and rationale for seeking this clarification and refinement. Member Cunningham opined that the City was being too narrow in its focus, and if a commercial building owner wanted aluminum siding, it should be allowed while at the same time restricting corrugated metal applications. Member Cunningham questioned what she was missing to make aluminum siding undesirable. Member Daire questioned if staff responsible for reviewing building plans or elevations for compliance might agree with an architect that they proposed application may be acceptable; and questioned if there was a variance process in place allowing their proposal to move forward even though not specifically addressed here. Mr. Paschke stated that, from his perspective, this focus was not being too narrow, and questioned if it was the community’s preference to have metal sided commercial or office buildings; and clarified that he was only envisioning types of metal panels found of an industrial nature and frequently used for distribution or warehouse facilities. Mr. Paschke confirmed that a variance process was in place, as previously noted for appeal of administr ative decisions to the City Council. Mr. Paschke clarified that he was only aware of a few situations where metal siding or other siding materials had been used for pre- existing buildings all located in the Industrial Districts; and opined that he thought staff was already being consistent, but preferred to have the requested spec ificity for future application and enforcement. Mr. Paschke also recognized that this language allowed for a review of materials and technologies not currently available but available in the future, and allowed staff to make determinations in those circumstances. Member Boguszewski referenced the last line of Section 5.3 of the staff report, providing consideration of new materials by staff without requiring a formal variance process, opining that it was a significant protection for all parties.