2013_0708(part 2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PROJECT FILE 13-0017 1 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT CHANGES to multiple sections 2 to revise how outdoor storage is defined and regulated and where outdoor storage is allowed 3 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at about 7:45 p.m. 4 City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, based on a previous discussion by 5 the Commission at their March 6, 2013 meeting; and asking the Planning Division to provide examples of outdoor 6 storage and display, and revise current code specific to outdoor storage regulations. Mr. Paschke credited 7 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd with the majority of preparation and specifics outlined in the report and in 8 Attachment C. 9 Member Daire noted that the main focus in text and t able revisions seemed to be related to protecting 10 appearances to passersby; and questioned to what extent security or surveillance entered into considerations. 11 Mr. Paschke concurred that, since City Code allowed for pr ivacy fencing in Industrial or Commercial Districts, the 12 Police Department was often not able to visually observe the interior of those parcels, even though security and 13 safety were obvious concerns. From a staff perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that while the Police Department’s 14 input had not been solicited, most businesses of this type had security fences in those place due to their 15 preference not to have people see onto the site, and providing their own security or surveillance; at which time 16 their monitoring or alarm systems would alert the Police Department or their private Security provider(s) of any 17 trespassing and vandalism attempts. Mr. Paschke agreed that it was a trade-off in trying to keep the sites tidy and 18 protect passersby from that view; it did make it difficult for the Police Department to observe activity on a site from 19 outside. 20 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke stated that he would not go so far to say that the assumption was 21 that any business with a screened area was responsible for providing their own surveillance; he noted that this 22 provided greater clarification of current Code allowances or requirements by actually stepped back in a number of 23 areas for certain types of storage items and whether they needed to be screened or not. 24 Chair Gisselquist noted that the point was to make neighborhoods more aesthetically pleasing for the public. 25 Mr. Paschke stated that the intent also protected the rights of private property owners while protecting the public 26 from visual eyesores. 27 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 28 MOTION 29 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Stellmach to recommend to the City Council 30 APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT to multiple sections to revise how outdoor 31 storage is defined and regulated and where outdoor storage is allowed; based on the comments and 32 findings of Sections 4-6, and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 5, 2013. 33 Member Boguszewski advised that his key concern had been addressed through this further refinement; 34 designating and separating retail businesses displaying finished product; and he could support the request. 35 Chair Gisselquist opined that a nice compromise had been achieved. 36 Mr. Paschke noted that some displays (e.g. Praxair) pre-existed current code, and would remain a legal, non-37 conforming use. 38 Member Daire commended staff for their excellent photos and examples provided in the packet; providing his 39 consideration of some businesses that he had previously been unaware of specific to their storage situations. 40 Ayes: 6 41 Nays: 0 42 Motion carried. 43 $WWDFKPHQW& 3DJHRI