2010-08-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 04, 2010 Page 17 regulation in code standards, that addressed a number of issues, and that a lot of 806 those things were already regulated by State Statute, noting that that the City 807 could not regulate above State or MPCA regulations. 808 Member Gottfried expressed his anticipation of a very interesting discussion in 809 the future. 810 Mr. Paschke opined that, with this being a new code with the existing code 811 predicated on development, design and standards evidenced in 1959, it would 812 provide for very interesting discussions. 813 Mr. Grefenberg opined that the would like the public to participate in all aspects 814 of that dialogue; and questioned if “comfort” or “welfare” applied to a state 815 agency, as addressed in the City’s current zoning code performance standards. 816 Mr. Grefenberg reminded Commissioners that they made a commitment in 817 Section 1001.01, Section B, Purpose Statement to protect and enhance 818 character, stability and vitality. Mr. Grefenberg announced that this would be his 819 benchmark and would be discussed further. 820 Page 6, Section 1005.05 Industrial (I) District, B, Design Standards, B-2 821 Mr. Grefenberg questioned if berms were allowable in addition to or in place of a 822 solid opaque wall or fence; opining that their aesthetics may be favorable to a 823 solid wooden wall; and suggested that design standards be improved and not too 824 tight. 825 Mr. Paschke questioned if the language needed to be changed, since it was 826 already known where industrial lands were located; and questioned if an 8’ berm 827 could be achieved. Mr. Paschke, however, noted that it could be incorporated 828 with a fence or wall to achieve the required height; and advised that staff would 829 support berming for aesthetic purposes as long as the property were fully 830 screened at 100% capacity for 8’. 831 Mr. Grefenberg sought assurance that natural landscaping such as a berm would 832 be acceptable. 833 Chair Doherty noted that this was considered acceptable. 834 Page 6, B-2, a-g 835 Mr. Grefenberg questioned where raw material storage was addressed; and 836 suggested that it be broadened to include other raw material piles, and clarify 837 that a distinction should be made for sale of raw materials (e.g. landscape 838 materials) or another type of use or accommodation for outdoor storage. 839 Discussion included it would be covered under item 2.d as an aggregate 840 material, depending on the type of raw material. 841 Mr. Paschke advised that he would review that section to address storage of raw 842 materials. 843 Definitions 844 Mr. Grefenberg expressed interest in a careful review by the public of the 845 definitions section. 846 Mr. Paschke noted that this would be one of the last chapters created, following 847 development of the other chapters to make sure they included all necessary 848 definitions. 849 Page 7, Section E, Control Measures, Item 1-9 850 Mr. Grefenberg noted that he had previously expressed his concern with the 851 “contiguous property” designation. 852 General Comments 853 Mr. Grefenberg observed that often ordinary people thought of worst case 854 scenarios in an effort to prevent them. Mr. Grefenberg, as an example, used the 855