2013_0708(part 2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Member Cunningham advised that her concern was less with the 10% portion of Section 5.3 as in excluding the core materials on the main portion of a building. However, if she was assured that staff would take into consideration commercial uses and potentially using metal siding in Neighborhood Business Districts when they were attempting to blend into the neighborhood, she could support the request without further revision. Member Olsen opined that staff is not often given the credit they deserve, and concurred with Member Daire’s interpretation of staff’s genius in this language. Mr. Paschke recognized and duly noted that points raised; and noted that practical application would prove whether or not those concerns and points had been sufficiently addressed with this language. Mr. Paschke opined that there was something to be said for making language too rigid or contradicting other language. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would give further consideration to separating out Neighborhood Business Districts due to their closer proximity to residential areas and the desire for achieving that blend. Mr. Paschke reiterated that there was no urgency in proceeding, and if the Commission preferred that it be further refined and brought back, he was amenable to doing so. Member Boguszewski questioned if there was anything in code to address the intent of this, since the intent seemed to be to avoid or prevent incongruity along a neighborhood or street and the character of other buildings. Mr. Paschke stated that he was not sure if the Purpose Statement was that specific for material and design standard and was broader; however, he noted that the purpose of design standards was to achieve those goals within various Zoning Districts. Member Boguszewski opined that he could envision a restaurant or funeral home looking out of place if it looked like a residents; and questioned if it may be helpful to add a line about the intent of standards for these applications as well. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at approximately 8:24 p.m.; with no one appearing for or against. MOTION Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Daire to recommend to the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed TEXT AMENDMENT 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; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and the recommendations of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 5, 2013. Member Boguszewski asked staff to review the potential intent line, and consider an amendment to clarify the intent, based on his review of previous meeting minutes and Member Cunningham’s request for more detail. While recognizing their sizable difference, Member Cunningham suggested a review of the City of St. Paul’s provisions along Grand Avenue and many businesses relocating in older homes with siding; and expressed her curiosity in how their ordinance addressed that, and if it could provide a model for Roseville. Mr. Paschke clarified that the Roseville City Code did not allow a business to revert to a home; however, he offered to review the City of St. Paul code and bring this item back before the Commission if necessary or indicated. Ayes: 6 Nays: 0 Motion carried