Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment A - RPCA_04_06_16 <br />Planning Division staff has concluded, as a process of the review of this request, it is reasonable <br />137 <br />and appropriate to require certain forms of screening for uses that will occur on the Vogel <br />138 <br />Mechanical site. Although Section 1011.03.B, Buffer Area Screening (see below), is only <br />139 <br />required for new construction of any non-residential use adjacent to a low-density residential <br />140 <br />zone, the Planning staff sees merit in seeking similar forms of screening for a new conditional <br />141 <br />use occupying this site, which lies adjacent to a low density residential zone. <br />142 <br />The fence requirements in the previous IU have been the subject of much dispute between the <br />143 <br />applicant and the adjacent neighbors. Significant events have occurred including trimming and <br />144 <br />removal of landscaping that projected into the applicant’s property and the removal of the <br />145 <br />applicant’s chain-link fence that was necessitated by a need to more precisely determine the <br />146 <br />location of a buried CenturyLink cable. These events have strained relationships along the <br />147 <br />property edge. <br />148 <br />Since the CU is a new application, the Planning Commission is not bound by the previous IU <br />149 <br />decision, and should still consider this limited production and processing as an accessory use <br />150 <br />application for consistency with the five CU criteria listed in the City Code. The Commission <br />151 <br />may, if it deems it to be relevant, include the IU history as a component of the review and <br />152 <br />consideration. <br />153 <br />The Planning Division and Planning Commission are in a more reactive role when an applicant <br />154 <br />submits a conditional use proposal than with an IU request, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the <br />155 <br />consideration. Staff reviews the applicant’s proposal against the legal requirements of the <br />156 <br />Zoning Code and its effectiveness in mitigating any anticipated impacts. The original Interim <br />157 <br />Use process has more discretion since it is a process that is more legislative in nature than a CU. <br />158 <br />Since the definition of limited production and processing as an accessory use excludes excessive <br />159 <br />noise, the primary impacts that are anticipated are visual impacts related to vehicles, both in <br />160 <br />terms of vehicle storage and vehicle headlights. The two areas that will generate these impacts <br />161 <br />are the front and rear parking lots. <br />162 <br />The fence that is proposed by the applicant is 6 to 6-1/2 feet in height and running the length of <br />163 <br />the property. The applicant is proposing to install the fence south of the northern property line to <br />164 <br />avoid conflicts with neighbor vegetation that will grow back over time, tree roots, fence posts, <br />165 <br />and to avoid conflicts with the CenturyLink cable that meanders along the property line. The <br />166 <br />applicants proposal indicates the fence could be located anywhere north of the building line, and <br />167 <br />not necessarily on the northern edge of the property, as was approved with the IU. <br />168 <br />A 6 to 6-1/2 foot tall fence, as proposed, has traditionally been considered adequate for visual <br />169 <br />screening in the City of Roseville. A full length fence in the location the applicant is proposing <br />170 <br />would meet the standards of visual screening per the Code. <br />171 <br />It should be noted that there was a lot of neighborhood concern about the location of the fence in <br />172 <br />the IU process, as setting it back off the property would require them to install their own fences <br />173 <br />to enclose their yards, whereas previously they were able to utilize the applicant’s chain-link <br />174 <br />fence that was removed. There was also a lot of concern mentioned during the IU process <br />175 <br />related to the amount of work that has previously been completed along the property line in order <br />176 <br />to attempt to clear landscaping and other obstructions that interfered with the IU fence <br />177 <br />installation. <br />178 <br />The technical standard of review for visual screen is the degree to which it adequately blocks the <br />179 <br />view of headlights and contractor vehicles. Both the original IU fence proposal and the <br />180 <br />PF16-007_RPCA_030216 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br />