2013_06_05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 Page 8 MOTION 348 Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Stellmach to recommend to 349 the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT to 350 multiple sections to revise how outdoor storage is defined and regulated and 351 where outdoor storage is allowed; based on the comments and findings of 352 Sections 4-6, and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated June 5, 353 2013. 354 Member Boguszewski advised that his key concern had been addressed through this 355 further refinement; designating and separating retail businesses displaying finished 356 product; and he could support the request. 357 Chair Gisselquist opined that a nice compromise had been achieved. 358 Mr. Paschke noted that some displays (e.g. Praxair) pre-existed current code, and would 359 remain a legal, non-conforming use. 360 Member Daire commended staff for their excellent photos and examples provided in the 361 packet; providing his consideration of some businesses that he had previously been 362 unaware of specific to their storage situations. 363 Ayes: 6 364 Nays: 0 365 Motion carried. 366 Anticipated City Council action is scheduled at their June 17, 2013 meeting. 367 PROJECT FILE 13-0017 g. 368 Request by Roseville Planning Division for approval of ZONING TEXT CHANGES to 369 the exterior building materials regulations in Chapters 1005, 1006, 1007, and 1008 370 of the City Code to clarify and refine the restriction of corrugated metal as found 371 on typical pole buildings 372 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at about 8:00 p.m. 373 City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT as detailed 374 in the staff report dated June 5, 2013. While not confident that it was a simple solution, 375 Mr. Paschke advised that staff had determined to not even identify corrugated metal in 376 the definition after reviewing different models from other municipalities. Mr. Paschke 377 advised that those models, many with similar language to current Roseville code, did not 378 provide any good clarity; and even though several models had been found without that 379 particular reference as well, but got to the heart of what was being attempted as the 380 preferred accomplishments. Mr. Paschke referenced Section 5.3 of the report and the 381 proposed broadened material based, while offering some limitations for accent materials 382 as well. 383 At the request of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Paschke confirmed that various plans reviewed 384 by staff did include requests for corrugated siding; and when staff requested the 385 specification sheet, if it says anything about corrugated metal, it can’t be used. While it 386 may be splitting hairs for products currently available, Mr. Paschke noted staff’s desire to 387 make sure there was enough specificity to address architectural metal siding of a thicker 388 mill and different design, but still ribbed, versus corrugated metal. Mr. Paschke opined 389 that this provided protection to prevent the major portion of a building or accessory 390 structure having that type of material and clarified the attempts of staff to address building 391 elevations. 392 Considerable discussion ensued related to the definition of standard “aluminum siding,” 393 preferences for commercial buildings to look different than residential buildings for 394 aesthetic purposes and distinctions; and rationale for seeking this clarification and 395 refinement. 396 Member Cunningham opined that the City was being too narrow in its focus, and if a 397 commercial building owner wanted aluminum siding, it should be allowed while at the 398