2010-08-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 04, 2010 Page 16 Mr. Grefenberg clarified that he had not meant to imply that a decision had 755 already been made regarding the asphalt plant, but only meant to suggest that a 756 more dynamic decision-making and public process was a good thing to consider. 757 Mr. Grefenberg noted that his concerns tonight related to the Performance 758 Standards in the proposed zoning code for Industrial uses was based on his 759 lacking the benefit of an open house where he could address his questions and 760 comments. 761 Chair Doherty requested that the remaining questions and/or comments of Mr. 762 Grefenberg be specific to the consideration of Chapter 1005, Employment District 763 section of the proposed zoning code, and not specific to the asphalt plant. 764 Mr. Grefenberg opined that none of the public would probably be here if not for 765 the asphalt plant, and to ensure that the same mistakes are not repeated. 766 Member Gottfried opined that he had received that message. 767 Mr. Grefenberg offered to move to his next issue, as long as he was clear that 768 the “y” in the column related to manufacturing and processing would be a 769 conditional use. 770 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively provided they have outdoor storage 771 requirements. 772 Member Wozniak noted that one of the issues about the asphalt plant that 773 concerned him when it came before the Commission, was that the only reason it 774 came before the body for a public hearing and for a recommendation to the City 775 Council was based on the request to store materials outdoors; and questioned if 776 the proposed zoning code would allow more control over design of a 777 manufacturing facility or whether history could repeat itself. 778 Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively, as the plant was a permitted use under 779 existing code. Mr. Paschke noted that an asphalt plant was not considered much 780 differently than another type of industrial plant that was permitted by the MPCA, 781 as a higher authority. Mr. Paschke advised that the question for consideration 782 should be whether to require manufacturing and processing uses to go through a 783 more formal process. Mr. Paschke noted that the proposed code was not 784 currently seeking that, and was similar to the existing code allowing a number of 785 permitted uses. Mr. Paschke noted that there were certain permitted uses that 786 could do as much harm to the atmosphere and were therefore required to meet 787 specific processes under the jurisdiction of the MPCA. Mr. Paschke asked that 788 the Commission, if their recommendation was to prohibit specific uses or have 789 them regulated through a more formal process such as a conditional use, make 790 that recommendation clear at this time. 791 Member Gottfried, adding to Member Wozniak’s comments, questioned when the 792 Commission started addressing design standards in the next step of the 793 ordinance process, would they then address such things as fumes, odors, lights, 794 noise, vibrations, and provide sufficient guidance to address those concerns on a 795 broader scale across more districts than just manufacturing. 796 Mr. Paschke opined that it would; however, he noted that the code needed to be 797 very specific and could not be broad in order to allow it to be regulated and 798 enforced, and couldn’t be nebulous. Mr. Paschke noted that this was one of the 799 problems with the current code, that it was to ambiguous in attempting to 800 realistically enforce it, with advice from the City Council on whether provisions 801 are enforceable. 802 Member Gottfried sought an example such as a regulation for light pollution. 803 Mr. Paschke advised that the current code is quite standard, in addressing the 804 design and location of a light or sign; and opined that if you have a broad 805