2016-10-05_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

to community and as concerns have arisen and certain impacts addressed, but not 258 allowing for many similarities among metropolitan communities. 259 Chair Boguszewski stated that the rationale for his question was related to where this 260 could put Roseville in competing for attracting developers, and whether or not this would 261 make it more restrictive to those developers. 262 Mr. Paschke opined that the proposed text amendments would be much more attractive 263 for potential developers than current language and would serve to address some 264 concerns raised by potential developers to-date in seeking a process they could pursue 265 for analysis and vetting of a specific project and possible mitigation through a Conditional 266 Use versus simply permitted or not permitted uses in a designated zoning district. 267 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke clarified if an existing property no longer met 268 revised provisions if these amendments are adopted, they would be classified as legal, 269 nonconforming, with no expansion on site without a process addressing setbacks, 270 building heights and density. Mr. Paschke noted they could still make certain 271 improvements as addressed under state statute, but could not expand their current 272 project or use. 273 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m., no one spoke for or against. 274 MOTION 275 Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City 276 Council APPROVAL of amendments to Tables 1004-6, 1005-2, 1005-3, and 1005-4 of 277 Roseville Zoning Code as detailed in Attachment E of the staff report dated 278 October 5, 2016, and based on public comments and Planning Commission input; 279 amended as follows: 280 • Attachment E, page 1, Footnote D, amend to read: 281 Building height above 45’ \[but less than 65’\] requires a CU in HDR-1.” 282 Member Murphy thanked staff for the thoroughness of their staff report and providing City 283 Council discussion in their report. While reiterating he had found it one of the more 284 difficult assignments to-date, Member Murphy noted how that additional information had 285 helped inform his review of this request. 286 Chair Boguszewski concurred, noting he found City Council discussion provided in 287 meeting minutes especially helpful in understanding their thought process. 288 Ayes: 6 289 Nays: 0 290 Motion carried 291 b. PROJECT FILE 0017, Amendment 30 292 Request by the City of Roseville to amend Table 1006-1 and Chapter 1009 (Procedures) 293 to establish motor freight terminals as a CONDITIONAL USE 294 Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at 7:28 p.m. 295 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the request and staff’s analysis of the request as 296 detailed in the staff report dated October 5, 2016. As noted in lines 45-53 of the staff 297 report, Mr. Paschke noted the 2010 city code revisions should have listed “motor freight 298 terminals” as a Conditional Use in Industrial Districts with specific criteria developed to 299 address placement of trailers and their potential impact to adjacent properties. Mr. 300 Paschke also noted the need at that time to consider whether a “motor freight terminal” 301 was meant to be grouped with another use (e.g. warehousing and distribution), but 302 without definition of distribution or mention the warehousing definition, staff determined 303 this use was not intended to be included in warehousing and distribution uses. 304 Member Murphy clarified the date for adoption of current city code (December of 2010) 305 and “motor freight terminals” listed as a Conditional Use in certain zoning designations 306 prior to that, asking how to differentiate this use from that of “semi-trailer storage- 307 outdoors.” 308