2014_06_04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 14 job site, and would typically only consist of end caps, grills and/or registers, with 662 someone else typically fabricating the larger ductwork that would be delivered directly to 663 a job site. 664 Member Daire advised that he had an image in his mind of a large helicopter picking up a 665 rooftop unit to transport it off-site. 666 Ms. Vogel advised that their firm had done helicopter lifts, including a recent one for 667 Costco, but advised that they were not done from their site and those sized units usually 668 go to crane yards for storage. 669 Member Daire advised that he had not attended the open house held by the applicant, 670 and asked Ms. Vogel to summarize any unaddressed concerns if any remained. 671 Ms. Vogel advised that noise and traffic concerns were addressed; and the only other 672 issue seemed to be about odors which were attributed to other neighboring businesses 673 and floating across the neighborhood, but would not be an issue for their operation. Ms. 674 Vogel advised that the other questions raised by the public were similar to those of the 675 Commission tonight: whether the scope of the business would significantly change due to 676 improved economics. Ms. Vogel advised that their intent was to take advantage of this 677 opportunity to expand their fabrication operation; and they would remain bound to the 678 City’s zoning laws and restrictions, and intended that their business model would remain 679 respectful of those and abide by them. 680 Public Comment 681 Lisa McCormick, Wheeler Street N 682 Ms. McCormick advised that she had spoken with Mr. Lloyd earlier today; and having 683 lived in the neighborhood for twenty years, and a Roseville resident for almost thirty 684 years, in general she was supportive of granting this application. However, Ms. 685 McCormick advised that she had some concerns about the general welfare portion and 686 some issues in line with tonight’s discussion. 687 While not knowing much about the sheetmetal field, Ms. McCormick advised that she had 688 done some research, and noise and chemical use were the issues of most concern to her 689 from that research. In researching existing fabrication shops, Ms. McCormick advised 690 that she had found only one located adjacent to a residential neighborhood, and that was 691 in Minneapolis, in a not so desirable neighborhood. Ms. McCormick advised that others 692 were consistently located in industrial parks. While being satisfied with the limited use, 693 Ms. McCormick advised that she would not support full sheetmetal fabrication, which was 694 significant and lent credibility to concerns on noise and other issues. 695 Ms. McCormick advised that she had attended the open house and the comments of Ms. 696 Vogel, and applauded her efforts and accomplishments to-date; and their planned 697 expansion based on their exceptional growth, and including a succession plan. Ms. 698 McCormick advised that she saw this use as a long-term one and relationship in the City; 699 and sought to ensure that any potential problems be addressed now rather than after 700 they develop later. Ms. McCormick noted that the business was moving from a 3,000 701 square foot suite to a 38,000 square foot building, which was a significant increase, with 702 expectations that their business would continue to grow, based on the size of their 703 financial investment and long-term succession plan in place. 704 Ms. McCormick advised that her concern coincided with other issues on tonight’s 705 agenda, including the proposed CMU designation, and the potential that this use will 706 become a conforming use. While more than willing to welcome this company into the 707 neighborhood, Ms. McCormick opined that conditions should be required and controls in 708 place now rather than later. Ms. McCormick recognized that this type of building and 709 proposed use made sense, but advised that her only concern was that the Interim Use 710 has conditions in place. While understanding from her discussion with Mr. Lloyd was that 711 such conditions were not generally made with this type of permit, in her review of City 712 Code and those discussions, Ms. McCormick opined that screening requirements of City 713