2010-08-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 04, 2010 Page 13 recommendation. Mr. Grefenberg opined that a blanket application for Industrial 600 zones needed to include provisions only now found in those design standards 601 and regulations for residential development. 602 Mr. Grefenberg highlighted and displayed specific sections and general 603 requirements of the existing Zoning Code (Section 1007.09, D, Performance 604 Standards) addressing noise, smoke and particulate matter; toxic or noxious 605 matter; odors; vibrations; and differencing in the existing code and that proposed, 606 specifically those requirements beyond the boundaries of the immediate site; and 607 expressed concern that the same safeguards and attention to potential impacts 608 of Industrial use on adjoining residential or office uses were not addressed. 609 Mr. Grefenberg noted his and Member Wozniak’s role in including 610 recommendations for language in the Purpose Statement of the proposed Zoning 611 Ordinance, Chapter 1001.01 General Provisions, A and B, regulations for the 612 purpose of protecting and enhancing the character, stability, and vitality of 613 residential neighborhoods. Mr. Grefenberg noted that the Comprehensive Plan 614 talked about public engagement, and read and displayed a highlighted portion of 615 that referenced language as it related to the need for expanded and transparent 616 public engagement when considering significant land use decisions. Mr. 617 Grefenberg opined that the last time a land use decision came before this body 618 (e.g. asphalt plant), the process went very quickly; and asked that the Planning 619 Commission hold off acting on this Chapter to allow one more meeting to get 620 more information and hold another less formal Open House. 621 Mr. Grefenberg proceeded with questions and/or comments specific to various 622 sections of the proposed Chapter 1005, Employment Districts, 05/13/10 draft. 623 Page 7, Section E. Control Measures, Item #9: impact on contiguous property 624 Mr. Grefenberg noted that previous safeguards referenced didn’t speak to 625 contiguous properties; and expressed concern with that designation, when 626 impacts could more far-reaching than to those properties contiguous to them. Mr. 627 Grefenberg suggested that this language be eliminated and a more general term 628 used, such as “proximate” or something similar, to provide more confidence on 629 those control measures, similar to the existing measures. 630 Page 1, Section 1005.01, Statement of Purpose, Section B and references to the 631 Use Chart on Table 1005-1 on page 3 632 Mr. Grefenberg used the example of a Vikings Stadium as a possible use; and 633 highlighted and displayed his areas of concern. 634 Mr. Paschke responded that in the manufacturing and processing use 635 highlighted by Mr. Grefenberg, no outdoor activity was permitted, and outdoor 636 storage was a Conditional use, disallowing something like a stadium. 637 Mr. Grefenberg questioned if an asphalt plant, as currently understood, would fall 638 under a manufacturing and processing outdoor activity/storage use. 639 Mr. Paschke advised that it depended on whether the proposed use complied 640 with the definition. 641 However, Mr. Paschke noted that the achievement standards are still in the 642 development process and would be a separate section of the code, and would be 643 no different than those achievement standards to be developed and appropriate 644 to a residential or commercial/mixed use. In response to Mr. Grefenberg’s 645 concerns standards related to noise, odors, etc. would be incorporated broadly 646 into each all sections of the code, not just Industrial uses. 647 At the request of Chair Doherty, Mr. Paschke confirmed that it was likely that 648 those items of concern addressed by Mr. Grefenberg, would most likely be 649 incorporated into the new code, since they were all related to performance 650 standards. 651