2010-10-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 06, 2010 Page 6 aggregate as a principal use,” detailed in Section 2.0 of the Request for Planning 252 Commission Action dated October 6, 2010. 253 Staff recommended approval of the request for creation of Section 1007.015B, 254 Prohibited Uses; as detailed in Section 2 of the staff report dated October 6, 2010. 255 Mr. Paschke advised that the final draft of the new zoning code and Uses List 256 would incorporated all applicable designations for permitted and/or prohibited 257 uses, and be built into all districts for additional clarification. 258 Mr. Paschke noted receipt of a letter dated October 5, 2010 from Dick Lambert, 259 Chair of the Roseville Citizens League (RCL), as well as an e-mail dated October 260 6, 2010 from Sara Barsel, 1276 Eldridge Avenue, both supporting the proposed 261 list of prohibited uses as submitted by staff, provided as a bench handout, 262 attached hereto and made a part thereof.Mr. Paschke noted that the bench 263 handout also included written comments dated October 5, received from Megan 264 Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen Street, in general support of the proposed list, while 265 offering supplemental suggestions, comments and concern. Mr. Paschke further 266 noted that Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon had been in 267 communication with Ms. Dushin this afternoon and that she was in the audience 268 tonight and may have additional comment to offer. 269 Chair Doherty opined that the list of prohibited uses was good. 270 Discussion among Commissioners and staff included clarification of slaughtering 271 of animals (f); rationale for the City Attorney recommendation to remove specific 272 reference to crushing of aggregate materials as a principal use (k) due to their 273 typical accessory use based on some case law, with further detail provided by the 274 City Attorney to the City Council, pending approval tonight by the Commission; 275 differentiation of temporary interim uses for crushing operations versus permanent 276 uses; and staff’s confirmation that the proposed list of prohibited uses would not 277 have any impact on existing businesses or uses or put them in violation of their 278 current use. 279 Further discussion included metals, precious and rare, reduction, smelting and 280 refining (h) with staff requested to review the types of metal uses before this item 281 reached the City Council for consideration. 282 Additional discussion included the proposed asphalt plant and any impacts to that 283 application already pending and undergoing environmental review by the MPCA. 284 Member Gisselquist opined that the list was good; however, he expressed 285 concern that assurances were in place that the list of prohibitions did not have 286 negative impacts for existing uses in the northwest quadrant of Roseville; and that 287 as those businesses cycled in the future, the City didn’t experience vacant parcels 288 and/or buildings due to undue use limitations in the industrial area. 289 Staff noted that the list could be amended as periodically indicated through a 290 Zoning Text Amendment process, whether initiated by staff or an applicant. 291 Public Comment 292 Megan Dushin, 2249 St. Stephen Street 293 Ms. Dushin noted her written comments were provided for the record; and asked if 294 staff could identify their criteria for creating the list and whether that criteria could 295 be used to determine any other future potential uses rather than limiting it to this 296 specific list. 297 Chair Doherty opined that it was an extremely complicated process to create such 298 broad-natured criteria and may have unintended consequences and exclude 299 things unintentionally; and may be more subjective rather than objective based on 300 individual perspectives. 301