2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 16 Member Stellmach sought further clarification from Mr. Paschke that the firm could add a 760 significant number of employees or increase the intensity of the use, but would still be 761 limited by definition of “limited production” and no noise allowed to escape the building 762 that could negatively impact adjacent residential properties. 763 Mr. Paschke responded that, at this present time, “office use” is permitted on this site and 764 the firm could hire as many office employees as they wanted as long as they provided 765 sufficient parking, As a permitted use, Mr. Paschke clarified that when getting into the 766 category of special approval for certain uses, you were then bound by those 767 requirements, in this case “limited production/processing” and how that is approved, the 768 impacts involved and other code parameters. 769 Member Stellmach sought further clarification as to the slight difference between “limited 770 production” as an accessory use versus a principle use; and noted that under accessory 771 use, all activities had to be conducted indoors, while with a principle use, some could be 772 outdoors. 773 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively; and further noted that the way that is defined also 774 determines what the primary use of the site becomes. In this case, Mr. Paschke 775 reiterated that the primary use is “office building,” not “limited production/.processing,” 776 with that being secondary to the nature of the principle business being conducted on the 777 site. As defined, Mr. Paschke advised that under no stretch of interpretation by the 778 Planning Division, was that secondary use considered as the primary use on this site. 779 Specific to staff’s recommendation for Condition 3, Member Stellmach asked if the city 780 were to receive complaints related to excessive noise and the doors are required to 781 remain closed during operation, how staff would verify that and the procedure that would 782 follow that verification. 783 Mr. Paschke advised that it would be similar to other properties in Roseville when 784 adjacent neighbors complain to the city about related noise or neighborhood concerns 785 about uses. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would check out the noise by use of noise 786 meters during various times of activity to determine if they were crossing thresholds, and 787 if so address them as per city code accordingly. 788 At the request of Member Stellmach, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the meter would be 789 used to measure noise on property line. As an example, Mr. Paschke advised that city 790 staff had performed that measurement several times upon completion of the Ramsey 791 County Library – Roseville Branch due to noise complaints about coolers at the Library 792 that had been raised by adjacent residential property owners. 793 If the CU was approved, Member Gitzen asked staff to explain the process for vacating 794 the IU. 795 Mr. Bilotta advised that he would need to verify the process, but anticipated it would be a 796 separate action for formally withdraw the IU or via written letter to have the CU 797 automatically supersede the IU; all processed at the City Council level. 798 Mr. Paschke noted that an IU is not typically allowed on this type of property zoning; and 799 therefore suggested the CU and rezoning may supersede the IU by default. 800 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the property was now 801 zoned Community Mixed Use (CMU-1). 802 At the request of Member Murphy, using the map (Attachment B) Mr. Paschke 803 differentiated the fence locations and heights in options outlined in Condition 1.A, 1.B and 804 1.C accordingly. Mr. Paschke noted that option 1.A locates the fence further south while 805 option 1.B locates the fence as confirmed by the City Council at their January 25, 2016 806 meeting. 807 Mr. Bilotta noted that the difference between the two, based on the applicant’s current CU 808 proposal, is to locate the fence somewhere between the northern edge of the building 809 and the properly line, not yet firmly defined. Mr. Bilotta noted that the IU talked about the 810