2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 15 Under the listed exemptions in Section 2.0, Item B (lines 93-96), Member Daire 711 questioned the process of adverse findings for adjacent properties, with Mr. Paschke 712 advising that it would be an administrative decision of the Community Development 713 Department; and subject to those decisions being appealable to the City Council as 714 defined by City Code in several applications and areas. 715 Chair Gisselquist clarified that the only modifications to this existing code language was 716 highlighted in red in the staff report. 717 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 9:12 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. 718 MOTION 719 Member Olsen moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to the City 720 Council APPROVAL of the proposed TEXT AMENDMENT so Section 1011.07 Height 721 Exemptions in all Districts, as submitted by the Planning Division and detailed in 722 Section 2 of the staff report dated May 1, 2013. 723 Ayes: 6 724 Nays: 0 725 Abstentions: 1 (Daire) 726 Motion carried. 727 Anticipated City Council action is scheduled for May 20, 2013. 728 d. PROJECT FILE 0017 729 Request by Roseville Planning Division for ZONING TEXT CHANGES to the exterior 730 building materials regulations in Chapters 1005, 1006, 1007, and 1008 of the City 731 Code to clarify and refine the restriction of corrugated metal as found on typical 732 pole buildings (PROJ-0017) 733 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0017 at 9:13 p.m. 734 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT as 735 detailed in the staff report dated May 1, 2013, specifically in Section 5.4 of the report. 736 Discussion included how other municipalities addressed this material category; when and 737 how corrugated type metal materials were appropriate and when similar “pole barn” type 738 materials were not permitted; review by staff of five (5) municipal codes in an attempt to 739 find useful language to model; and how this language revision could impact and limit 740 cost-effective exterior materials used for public park structures, even though they fell into 741 the recently-developed Institutional Zoning District that included churches, schools and 742 municipal buildings and having all of the same design requirements. 743 Further discussion ensued among staff and members as to how and if this definition 744 accomplished the desired goal; weight and construction qualities of industrial ribbed 745 versus corrugated exterior materials; rationale for not specifically identifying materials 746 now available on the market to not limit less desirable materials that may be or are 747 presently being developed with new technologies, but currently without differentiation or 748 definition; and suggested language that would better accomplish the overall goal. 749 Consensus of the body was that more research was indicated; with staff requesting more 750 specific direction on how to proceed and what additional information would assist them 751 best. Further consensus was that individual members should forward any language 752 suggestions to staff within the next two (2) weeks for staff review and consideration by 753 the full body at a future meeting. 754 Discussion ensued regarding wording, including architectural metal panels of a higher 755 standard than ribbed or corrugated; random ribbed panels; examples of various materials 756 and their applicability for the building materials section. 757 Member Cunningham expressed confidence that some Planning Code somewhere, even 758 outside MN, had a better summary of this material, but noted that it may require more 759 research. 760