2013-05-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 1, 2013 Page 16 Associate Planner Lloyd questioned if this material was simply a legacy regulation from 761 its past role, and perhaps was no longer a necessary prohibition. 762 Member Cunningham wasn’t comfortable in not having some way to address such 763 material. 764 Further discussion included whether there was any situation to-date where an agricultural 765 pole building or industrial pole building application had been received, with staff 766 responding that they were not aware of any such request to-date; instances where in the 767 future some industrial projects could come forward seeking to use a less expensive grade 768 of corrugated metal siding, which staff had so far indicated as inappropriate in the City of 769 Roseville; and clarifying whether the issue was with the pole framing or siding itself, with 770 staff clarifying that the siding itself by defacto was called out as pole or barn siding, and 771 definitely not a product wanted in any commercial, industrial, office or residential area in 772 Roseville, with the attempt to define what the exemption should be and what materials 773 were actually allowable, with current City Code offering no guidance. 774 Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was to promote high quality design and aesthetic 775 considerations, not storage other than land use classifications currently allow. 776 Additional discussion included the variety of names in the current metal panel industry for 777 very similar products based on their specification sheets, and future products as well; 778 whether there was a performance standard that would be applicable (e.g. percentage of 779 metal siding allowed, or weight tolerance of that siding based on thickness and strength); 780 and wind standards dictating structural performance standards, but not necessarily all 781 providing aesthetically pleasing buildings. 782 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 9:34 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. 783 MOTION 784 Member Daire moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski, to TABLE consideration 785 of this TEXT CHANGE to the June 2013 Planning Commission meeting. 786 Ayes: 7 787 Nays: 0 788 Motion carried. 789 e. PROJECT FILE 0017 790 Request by Roseville Planning Division for a ZONING TEXT CHANGE to Chapter 791 1006 of the City Code to eliminate the size limitation unintentionally applied to 792 motor vehicles that may be repaired in the Industrial Zoning District (PROJ-0017) 793 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0017 at 9:35 p.m. 794 Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT as 795 detailed in Attachment A of the staff report dated May 1, 2013. Mr. Lloyd also referred 796 members to a correction in Table 1006-1 of Attachment A in the “standards” column that 797 was intended to be deleted upon approval of this revised language for repair of large 798 motor vehicles, as recommended. 799 Discussion included the inadvertent restriction on size of vehicles in Industrial Zoning 800 Districts only; this use being the primary use on a property within this zoning 801 classification; and existing versus new uses. 802 Member Daire sought assurance that, in policing the government’s own facilities, the City 803 of Roseville’s Public Works Department’s ongoing maintenance of their larger vehicles 804 was appropriate within the City Campus zoning classification. 805 Mr. Lloyd noted that the Public Works Department’s repair work was not the principal use 806 on site, and that they would also fall under the Institutional Zoning District as a 807 Conditional Use for those properties (Table 1007-2-Institutional Zoning Districts) as an 808 existing not new use. 809