2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 7 serve to benefit those not hiring outside maintenance contractors but using their own staff 299 and needing to accommodate those items on-site versus hauling them around. 300 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 301 MOTION 302 Member Gisselquist moved, seconded by Member Daire to recommend to the City 303 Council APPROVAL of the proposed TEXT AMENDMENTS to the Accessory Uses, 304 Buildings, and Structures section of Table 1005-1 and 1006-1, and the inclusion of 305 the requirements for accessory buildings in Section 1011.12E and F of the Property 306 Performance Standards; based on the comments and findings of Sections 4-6, and 307 recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 5, 2013. 308 Ayes: 6 309 Nays: 0 310 Motion carried. 311 Anticipated City Council action is scheduled at their June 17, 2013 meeting. 312 PROJECT FILE 13-0017 f. 313 Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT 314 CHANGES to multiple sections to revise how outdoor storage is defined and 315 regulated and where outdoor storage is allowed 316 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at about 7:45 p.m. 317 City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, based on 318 a previous discussion by the Commission at their March 6, 2013 meeting; and asking the 319 Planning Division to provide examples of outdoor storage and display, and revise current 320 code specific to outdoor storage regulations. Mr. Paschke credited Associate Planner 321 Bryan Lloyd with the majority of preparation and specifics outlined in the report and in 322 Attachment C. 323 Member Daire noted that the main focus in text and table revisions seemed to be related 324 to protecting appearances to passersby; and questioned to what extent security or 325 surveillance entered into considerations. 326 Mr. Paschke concurred that, since City Code allowed for privacy fencing in Industrial or 327 Commercial Districts, the Police Department was often not able to visually observe the 328 interior of those parcels, even though security and safety were obvious concerns. From a 329 staff perspective, Mr. Paschke advised that while the Police Department’s input had not 330 been solicited, most businesses of this type had security fences in those place due to 331 their preference not to have people see onto the site, and providing their own security or 332 surveillance; at which time their monitoring or alarm systems would alert the Police 333 Department or their private Security provider(s) of any trespassing and vandalism 334 attempts. Mr. Paschke agreed that it was a trade-off in trying to keep the sites tidy and 335 protect passersby from that view; it did make it difficult for the Police Department to 336 observe activity on a site from outside. 337 At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke stated that he would not go so far to say 338 that the assumption was that any business with a screened area was responsible for 339 providing their own surveillance; he noted that this provided greater clarification of current 340 Code allowances or requirements by actually stepped back in a number of areas for 341 certain types of storage items and whether they needed to be screened or not. 342 Chair Gisselquist noted that the point was to make neighborhoods more aesthetically 343 pleasing for the public. 344 Mr. Paschke stated that the intent also protected the rights of private property owners 345 while protecting the public from visual eyesores. 346 Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. 347