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 10 <br />Member Murphy stated that he didn’t share the concerns expressed by the makers of the <br />450 <br />motion, and suggested it simply opened the door to further contention. <br />451 <br />Member Bull noted that this was a small part of the Vogel Mechanical operation, but <br />452 <br />clarified that he was thinking of future businesses; and further clarified that the condition <br />453 <br />only spoke to a limited time for door closures during processing operations, as intended <br />454 <br />by the specific language of the amendment. <br />455 <br />Chair Boguszewski stated that a combination of the comments expressed by Members <br />456 <br />Bull and Cunningham had swayed him to agree with their position. <br />457 <br />AMENDMENT <br />458 <br />Ayes: 4 (Gitzen, Cunningham, Boguszewski, Bull) <br />459 <br />Nays: 2 (Daire, Murphy) <br />460 <br />Abstentions: 1 (Kimble) <br />461 <br />Motion carried. <br />462 <br />ORIGINAL MOTION RESTATED AS AMENDED <br />463 <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by MemberGitzen to recommend to the City <br />464 <br />Council approval of a CONDITIONAL USE allowing limited production and <br />465 <br />processing as an accessory use at 2830 Fairview Avenue, based on the comments <br />466 <br />and findings contained, and subject to stated conditions for approval as detailed in <br />467 <br />the staff reports dated March 2 and April 6, 2016; <br />amended as follows: <br />468 <br />A solid opaque cedar fence approximately 6.5’ in height shall be installednorth <br />469 <br />of the existing eastern parking lot to screen the lot, including delivery and dock <br />470 <br />doors and the refuse/recycling areas. <br />471 <br />Additional landscaping shall be installed in and around the berm adjacent to <br />472 <br />the frontemployee and customer parking lot to more fully screen headlights <br />473 <br />from view of the adjacent residentially zoned properties. <br />474 <br />All required screening shall be installed no later than July 29, 2016. <br />475 <br />Production areas doors shall be closed during limited production and <br />476 <br />processing operations. <br />477 <br />Discussion ensued as to the intentand clarification of the motion for installation of the <br />478 <br />fence and allowing some flexibility as previously discussed. <br />479 <br />Ms. Collins advised that the applicant (Vogel Mechanical) would need to apply for a <br />480 <br />screening fence permit, triggering initial staff review prior to issuing the permit, based on <br />481 <br />approved CU conditions and in accordance with current city code provisions.In this <br />482 <br />specific case, Ms. Collins confirmed that the fence would be located somewhere north of <br />483 <br />the blue line indicated on the displayed map. <br />484 <br />Member Gitzen reiterated that the City Council had final approval rights after receiving <br />485 <br />this body’s recommendation. <br />486 <br />ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED <br />487 <br />Ayes: 3 (Gitzen, Murphy, Daire) <br />488 <br />Nays: 3 (Cunningham, Boguszewski, Bull) <br />489 <br />Abstentions: 1 (Kimble) <br />490 <br />Motion failed. <br />491 <br />Chair Boguszewski addressed his interpretation of this vote, opining that latitude seems <br />492 <br />to arise related to the narrow “no man’s land” as the area between potential fences was <br />493 <br />described.Chair Boguszewski stated that his main reasoning for not wanting the fence <br />494 <br />further north than the blue line was based on his original support for fence installation <br />495 <br />within 10’ of the northern lot line, or further south all the way to the edge of the parking <br />496 <br />lot, as supported by Member Bull.In addressing the concerns of Member Cunningham <br />497 <br />supporting the original IU condition for location of the fence (Option B), Chair <br />498 <br />Boguszewski noted that concerns were valid in transitioning between this property and <br />499 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.