Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 06, 2010 <br />Page 5 <br />and interior materials remained unchanged from previous presentations, with all <br />202 <br />common areas constructed to support the entire ninety-two (92) units included in <br />203 <br />Phase I and III, at a significant investment to the developer and expressing their <br />204 <br />confidence in the site and the market in Roseville for this type of senior housing. <br />205 <br />Public Comment <br />206 <br />Chair Doherty closed the Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m., with no one appearing for or <br />207 <br />against. <br />208 <br />Chair Doherty spoke in support of the proposal; recognizing the significant <br />209 <br />investment being made by the developer in being assured of the sale of units for <br />210 <br />Phase II. <br />211 <br />Member Gottfried concurred, opining that this was a good proposal. <br />212 <br />MOTION <br />213 <br />Member Cook moved, seconded by Member Doherty to RECOMMEND TO <br />214 <br />THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the proposed PLAT of 3008-3010 <br />215 <br />Cleveland Avenue as presented for United Properties; based on the <br />216 <br />information and comments of Sections 4 – 5 and the conditions of Section 6 <br />217 <br />of the staff report dated October 6, 2010. <br />218 <br />Ayes: 6 <br />219 <br />Nays: 0 <br />220 <br />Motion carried. <br />221 <br />Chair Doherty noted that the case was anticipated to be heard by the City Council <br />222 <br />at their October 11, 2010 meeting. <br />223 <br />e. PROJECT FILE 0024 <br />224 <br />Request by the Roseville Planning Division to Amend Section 1007-015 of <br />225 <br />the Roseville City Code – Title 10, Zoning Regulations, to include a list of <br />226 <br />prohibited uses within all Industrial Districts <br />227 <br />Chair Doherty opened the Public Hearing for Project File 0024 at 7:03 p.m. <br />228 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the history of the request for a proposed <br />229 <br />asphalt plant to be located with the City on a property zoned General Industrial <br />230 <br />District (I-2); and provisions of the current zoning code indicating that an asphalt <br />231 <br />plant would be considered a permitted manufacturing use processing raw <br />232 <br />materials into a finished product. Mr. Paschke noted the significant community <br />233 <br />and area-wide concern regarding potential negative environmental and health <br />234 <br />impacts perceived from operation of the plant. <br />235 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that the City Council consensus was that an asphalt plant <br />236 <br />should not be a permitted use in the City’s new zoning code, currently being <br />237 <br />drafted; and noted that in staff’s drafting of language for the new code, had found <br />238 <br />similar uses with as much undesirable impact, and suggested that, given the <br />239 <br />uncertain timeline for the new code to be adopted, it was imperative to <br />240 <br />immediately amend the current zoning ordinance to avoid any of those uses to <br />241 <br />begin operations before the new code is in place. <br />242 <br />Mr. Paschke reviewed various goals and policies outlined in the 2030 <br />243 <br />Comprehensive Plan emphasizing the need for land use and development that is <br />244 <br />sensitive to and protective of the City’s environmental quality, natural amenities <br />245 <br />and aesthetics, and consistent with the proposed additional prohibited uses <br />246 <br />recommended to the Use Chart of the existing zoning code, creating Section <br />247 <br />1007.015B Prohibited Uses (Attachment A). <br />248 <br />Following discussions with the City Attorney earlier today and following <br />249 <br />distribution of tonight’s meeting materials, Mr. Paschke advised that the City <br />250 <br />Attorney recommended removal of proposed use “k” entitled, “Crushing of <br />251 <br /> <br />