2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 28 Ms. McCormick opined that the bottom line is that the Vogels have yet to provide 1375 anything concrete showing they intent to install the fence near or close to its prior 1376 location, which had just been determined in January and subsequently upheld by the City 1377 Council. 1378 Regarding the noise and screening, using experiences with the building to the east, Ms. 1379 McCormick suggested noise controls be put in place to limit activities and times of 1380 operations. Ms. McCormick opined that she thought there was reason for concern for 1381 noise with the Vogel Mechanical operations. 1382 Ms. McCormick displayed a stack of documents, offering to leave the one copy with staff 1383 to incorporate by reference prior materials and factors relating to the neighborhood 1384 addressing those issues and highlighting guidance from the comprehensive plan. 1385 Ms. McCormick provided, as a bench handout attached hereto and made a part 1386 hereof, list of conditions if the Commission chose to approve the Vogel Sheetmetal CU. 1387 For the benefit of the listening audience, Ms. McCormick read through her list of 1388 conditions for approval of the CU. 1389 Member Bull At the request of , Ms. McCormick stated that her documentation didn’t 1390 include her correspondence with Xcel Energy and CenturyLink related to the fence 1391 location and footings, but offered to leave that information with staff for dissemination to 1392 the Commission. 1393 As Ms. McCormick read her list of conditions, and commissioners sought clarification of 1394 some of them, Ms. McCormick conceded that some of the conditions could be removed 1395 from her list if and when addressed by city code. 1396 Ms. McCormick suggested that some of the conditions removed ambiguities and inherent 1397 issues she had with the current Roseville complaint-driven process; and further 1398 suggested that it would provide rapport between neighbors and Vogels and reduce 1399 animosity. 1400 Specific to Ms. McCormick’s condition 5 “the overhead doors shall remain closed,” 1401 Member Murphy asked how that differed from requiring that the overhead doors be 1402 cemented shut and no longer used as a door. 1403 Ms. McCormick restated the condition, opining that her conditions #5 – 10 were her quick 1404 attempt to address ambiguities she found. In her previous discussions with the Vogels, 1405 Ms. McCormick stated that they indicated they had interviewed a potential renter for one 1406 of the bays; and in considering the CU, Ms. McCormick noted the need for the 1407 Commission to consider future renters and potential uses and other issues (e.g. noise). 1408 Ms. McCormick referenced information provided by the Vogels at their appeal before the 1409 Board of Adjustments and Appeals, and previous proposals for fence height, opining that 1410 changes in that height had since been brought forward and with reduced height, less 1411 extensive footings were required than those for 8’ fences. However, given the number of 1412 8’ fences throughout Roseville, as she provided via display of photographic evidence, Ms. 1413 McCormick opined that it must not be that problematic. 1414 Ms. McCormick stated that the safety issue brought to the attention of the neighbors had 1415 been brought forward by the Planning Division in August of 2015; and referenced a crime 1416 prevention flyer through environmental design as authored and provided by the Roseville 1417 Police Department. Ms. McCormick noted that this specially addressed “ambush alleys” 1418 that would occur with two fences; and sought information as to who would bear the 1419 burden for community and neighborhood safety and security if two fences were installed 1420 back to back. 1421 In the best case, Ms. McCormick opined that the fence should be reinstalled as close to 1422 its previous location as possible, further opining that it would go a long way in making 1423 better neighbors. If the Vogels would not do that, Ms. McCormick noted that was their 1424 choice. However, since they apparently purchased this property without contingencies 1425