Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Roseville <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br />July 12, 1995 <br /> <br />6. Public Hearings (Part II) <br /> <br />(g) Amendments to the Roseville Ci(y Ordinance requiring certain building <br />construction setback from pipelines by amending the city Code of the city of <br />Roseville by adding Chapter 36. <br /> <br />City Planner Mike Falk summarized the background and the details of the proposed <br />ordinance amendments. The ordinance is the result of recommendations to the City <br />Council by the Pipeline Safety Advisory Task Force. <br /> <br />Mr. Falk pointed out that currently pipelines are located within easements and that <br />buildings can be constructed right up to the easement line. The proposed ordinance <br />amendment would establish a 100 foot setback for buildings designed for human <br />occupancy from the pipe itself regardless of its location within the easement. Mr. Falk <br />pointed out that the ordinance is identical to the Maplewood ordinance. Mr. Falk <br />indicated that, in response to questions from Planning Commission members at the last <br />meeting, he had spoken with Maplewood staff and determined that the ordinance had not <br />been challenged but a number of variances had been applied for, and granted to the 100 <br />foot setback requirement. Mitigation strategies such as berming to divert fuel spills are <br />considered in the variance process. A similar variance process is a part of the proposed <br />Roseville ordinance. <br /> <br />Mr. Falk recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the <br />proposed ordinances to the City Code by adding Chapter 36 requiring certain building <br />construction setback from pipelines. <br /> <br />Member Harms pointed out that a number of property owners in the south of C <br />redevelopment area under study by the city expressed concerns concerning the impact of <br />the proposed ordinance on redevelopment of that area. Member Harms asked if there <br />could be a varying requirement for business versus residential development. <br /> <br />Chairman Wietecki pointed out that we had a situation where most of the city is <br />grandfathered in and that variances would be granted. <br /> <br />Member Rhody inquired if the ordinance considers the impact of such thing as <br />topography versus strictly distance. <br /> <br />19 <br />