My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2014-11-05_PC_Agenda
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2014 Agendas
>
2014-11-05_PC_Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/22/2016 11:33:38 AM
Creation date
4/22/2016 11:33:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, October 8, 2014 <br />Page 11 <br />Member Boguszewski stated that, and subsequent to tonight’s action, encouraging <br />506 <br />attendees to submit their own summaries as part of the process, especially as addressed <br />507 <br />by Mr. Lloyd, in altering that language to the invitation letters drafted for developers (page <br />508 <br />2, lines 34-37). <br />509 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />510 <br />Nays: 0 <br />511 <br />Motion carried. <br />512 <br />d.Project File 0017-Amendment 23 <br />513 <br />Request by the Community Development Department to amend certain <br />514 <br />requirements contained in Roseville City Code, Section 1009.03 (Interim Uses) <br />515 <br />Chair Gisselquist openedthe Public Hearing at 8:12p.m. <br />516 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request as detailed in the staff reportdated <br />517 <br />October 8, 2014, specifically highlighting the proposed amendment for Interim Use in <br />518 <br />lines 63 –71 of the report.In addition to the proposed amendments noted in the report, <br />519 <br />Mr. Paschke suggested another possible amendment to Item 3 (lines 70-71) to read: <br />520 <br />“\[Upon an event\] that will terminate…”Mr. Paschke advised that this language was <br />521 <br />based on MN State Statute 2013, Section 394.303 InterimUses, and was the preferred <br />522 <br />language of the Community Development Department versus totally eliminating the <br />523 <br />language in #3 (line 70). <br />524 <br />Chair Gisselquist asked staff to clarify the scope of the action, noting that the Vogel <br />525 <br />Sheetmetal case had been acted on previously, and was not before the Commission as <br />526 <br />part of this request, with that already at the City Council level; and the purpose of this <br />527 <br />proposed text amendment was to allow more flexibility in terms. <br />528 <br />Mr. Paschke confirmed that the Vogel Sheetmetal Interim Use had been approved by the <br />529 <br />City Council and was moving forward in the process. <br />530 <br />Chair Gisselquist further asked staff to address how this could impact the Vogel <br />531 <br />Sheetmetal Interim Use, as they were seeking financingto make their improvementsand <br />532 <br />the only way to obtain it was through changed zoning and comprehensive plan <br />533 <br />amendment to make the site and use a permitted use; or through seeking an Interim Use <br />534 <br />that could support a duration of twenty years with other conditions applied.In order to do <br />535 <br />anything different, Chair Gisselquist clarified that even if the Commission recommended <br />536 <br />amending the language today, anyone wanting to do something different, including the <br />537 <br />Vogel’s, would need to reapply. <br />538 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that not a lot of people sought to extend their Interim Use, but <br />539 <br />anyone was able to apply for an Interim Use.As he’d indicated in his summary before, <br />540 <br />the Interim Use was for a use not currently allowed in City Code, and there were not <br />541 <br />many currently out there other than Vogel that came immediately to mind. <br />542 <br />At the prompting of Member Daire related to the Spire Credit Union on tonight’s agenda, <br />543 <br />Mr. Paschke clarified that the Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval of <br />544 <br />their Interim Use request for signage had yet to be approved by the City Council.Mr. <br />545 <br />Paschke further noted that the State Fair could seek a longer exemption than their <br />546 <br />current five year renewals; but again clarified that each Interim use was no different than <br />547 <br />any other Planning application and was reviewed on its own merits and requirements on <br />548 <br />a case by case basis.If these amendments are approved, Mr. Paschke opined that the <br />549 <br />Commission would probably see Vogel Sheetmetal seeking an amendment to their <br />550 <br />current Interim Use permit to seek an extension of their timeframe to allow improvements <br />551 <br />to be made to the building. <br />552 <br />Chair Gisselquist stated that he had gotten the impression from reports and NextDoor <br />553 <br />comments that this discussion was focused on Vogel Sheetmetal; however, he now <br />554 <br />understood that it has impacts not only to their Permit, but others as well. <br />555 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.