2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 14 Member Murphy thanked the neighbors for sharing their concerns through written 661 correspondence and/or their appearance at tonight’s hearing; and thanked staff for 662 addressing issues. Member Murphy expressed his respect for the professional engineers 663 who had designed and reviewed this proposed development; and for clarifying that this 664 was not a private drive, but a public roadway. Member Murphy also expressed his 665 confidence that those same engineering concerns would be present and implementing 666 drainage management mechanisms to address the concerns expressed. Member Murphy 667 advised that he had seen the capabilities of newer technologies for infiltration systems, 668 and had also experienced the pain of paying park development fees; while also sharing 669 the citizen concerns as expressed. However, Member Murphy expressed his ultimate 670 confidence that staff would continue to work with the developer to address the runoff; and 671 stated that he would support the motion. 672 Member Murphy opined that, specific to the issue of aesthetics, so much depended on 673 the quality of building design and landscaping, and suggested that it could actually 674 become a more beautiful and attractive neighborhood with this development, and 675 address the comfort level of and alleviate the concerns of the neighborhood. However, 676 Member Murphy noted that this remained an unknown until the development was 677 completed. Member Murphy advised that he would support them motion. 678 Member Stellmach concurred with the comments of fellow Commissioners; and stated 679 that he would also support the motion. 680 Ayes: 7 681 Nays: 0 682 Motion carried. 683 Anticipated City Council action is scheduled for May 20, 2013. 684 Recess: Chair Gisselquist recessed the meeting at approximately 8:54 p.m. and reconvened at 9:02 p.m. 685 c. PROJECT FILE 0017 686 Request by Roseville Planning Division to modify Section 1011.07 Height 687 Exemption in all Districts, to include industrial silos and other text changes (PROJ- 688 0017) 689 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0017 at 9:03 p.m. 690 City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT as detailed 691 in the staff report dated May 1, 2013, specific to industrial silos. 692 Discussion included the potential types of storage that could be accommodated by these 693 silos (e.g. liquid nitrogen, oxygen, or grain) with their intent typically to hold a product 694 used in process, while their design could be different in size or composition; reference to 695 the exception listed on page 2 of the report (lines 47-50); and anticipated exception of 696 fuel storage tanks as exempt, since they would be considered more like water towers and 697 not fit this classification. 698 Mr. Paschke stated that, if the Commission chose to include fuel storage, he was unsure 699 if he would allow them in any district beyond where they were currently located. 700 Consensus of the Commission was that fuel storage tanks not be added. 701 Member Boguszewski referenced language on page 3 (lines 71-75) with Mr. Paschke 702 clarifying that this was intended to speak to new versus existing structures; and cited an 703 example of an existing tenant looking to expand in that industrial area, and concern that 704 they would need to proceed through some process. 705 Member Cunningham questioned if other industrial silos needed to be addressed as 706 listed on page 3 (line 92); with Mr. Paschke advising that the only structures that staff 707 thought should be added were those they thought should be exempt upon further review, 708 and modifying the language as suggested seemed to be the most appropriate way to do 709 so. 710