My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-05-04_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Agendas
>
2016-05-04_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/19/2016 4:26:49 PM
Creation date
5/19/2016 4:26:39 PM
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.
/
65
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, April 6, 2016 <br />Page 9 <br />Specific to the condition that all required screening be installed no later than June 30, <br />402 <br />2016, Member Murphy questioned if that date still allowed realistic compliance for the <br />403 <br />applicant, given that another month had ensued awaiting resolution of this issue. <br />404 <br />Member Murphy suggested extending that date to July 29, 2016 to allow additional <br />405 <br />working days for the Vogels and their contractors to accomplish the task. <br />406 <br />Chair Boguszewski recognized the applicant representative(s) in the audience regarding <br />407 <br />whether they could accomplish the work by June 30, 2016, with the applicant expressing <br />408 <br />no preference for a June or July completion date, leaving it at the discretion of the <br />409 <br />commission. <br />410 <br />Members Daire and Murphy withdrew their motion from the March 2, 2016 meeting, <br />411 <br />leaving no motion currently on the table. <br />412 <br />MOTION (lines 96 –101 of staff report dated April 6, 2016) <br />413 <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by MemberGitzen to recommend to the City <br />414 <br />Council approval of a CONDITIONAL USE allowing limited production and <br />415 <br />processing as an accessory use at 2830 Fairview Avenue,based on the comments <br />416 <br />and findings contained, and subject to stated conditions for approval as detailed in <br />417 <br />the staff reports dated March 2 and April 6, 2016; <br />amended as follows(lines 72 –77 <br />418 <br />of staff report dated April 6, 2016): <br />419 <br />A solid opaque cedar fence approximately 6.5’ in height shall be installed north <br />420 <br />of the existing eastern parking lot to screen the lot, including delivery and dock <br />421 <br />doors and the refuse/recycling areas. <br />422 <br />Additional landscaping shall be installed in and around the berm adjacent to <br />423 <br />thefrontemployee and customer parking lot to more fully screen headlights <br />424 <br />from view of the adjacent residentially zoned properties. <br />425 <br />All required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016. <br />426 <br />At the request of his colleagues, Member Murphy clarified that it was his intent to exclude <br />427 <br />Condition C (lines 108-109) from his motion, noting this would be addressed by existing <br />428 <br />city code in verifying any excessive noises based on complaints through the city’s noise <br />429 <br />ordinance or other requirements. <br />430 <br />AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION (lines 108-109 of staff report dated April 6, 2016) <br />431 <br />Member Bull moved, seconded by MemberCunningham an additional condition as <br />432 <br />follows: <br />433 <br />Production areas doors shall be closed during limited production and <br />434 <br />processing operations. <br />435 <br />Member Bullnoted that since a CU follows the property, future permitted uses for limited <br />436 <br />production/processing could entail additional environmental factors beyond sound for <br />437 <br />measurement at the lot line; and while possibly intermittent may prove impactful for <br />438 <br />adjacent residential properties. <br />439 <br />If such a condition is added for this CU application, Member Murphy asked if it was then <br />440 <br />the intent of this commission to add this as a condition or constraint for all such city-wide <br />441 <br />uses in the future. <br />442 <br />Member Cunningham responded affirmatively, if such a use is located this close to a <br />443 <br />residential neighborhood where their health, welfare and safety could be impacted. <br />444 <br />Chair Boguszewski clarified that this commission did not serve in the role of a tort court; <br />445 <br />and while this may be comparable, opined that the body would not be channeling future <br />446 <br />discussion intent on resorting to this for future uses. <br />447 <br />Member Murphy noted that in this situation, the loading dock doors face to the east and <br />448 <br />therefore sound would be channeled in that direction onto that commercial property. <br />449 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.