2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 11 Mr. Paschke advised that, if a complaint was received by staff, staff would make 501 a determination if they were meeting the City’s thresholds and proceed 502 accordingly. 503 At the request of Member Gottfried, Mr. Paschke clarified that, while the City 504 could not “trump” or lessen state regulations, in some instances the City could 505 apply more regulations through its code or ordinance, depending on the use. 506 Discussion ensued related to specific examples, such as the Department of 507 Natural Resources (DNR) and shoreland or wetland setback requirements and 508 the City’s ability to require greater regulations in that situation, since the DNR 509 was not charged with enforcing setbacks; whether the City could pass a higher 510 standard for odor or particulate emission requirements than the MPCA. 511 Ms. Dushin questioned how the new standards would match the existing six (6) 512 conditional use criteria in defining whether a use “would not be injurious to 513 neighborhood.” 514 Mr. Lloyd opined that a tight definition addressing all potential uses, and the 515 criteria used to evaluate a Conditional Use, was nearly impossible; and that 516 staff’s attempt was to measure whether a proposed use caused harm (injurious) 517 and was unfortunately sometimes subjective. 518 Further discussion included if and when traffic studies were required by an 519 applicant for a particular use in a specific area to determine “excessive burden” 520 or impacts to public streets and infrastructure, but dependent on the project or 521 development; and recognition that when considering an application, staff 522 considered many things, including permits and regulations of other agencies at 523 the county, state and/or federal level, as well as watershed districts, and as many 524 other available resources as possible to analyze a project and provide sufficient 525 information to the City’s decision-makers. 526 Additional discussion included distinctions for procedures versus performance 527 standards; recognizing that some uses needed more heightened requirements or 528 standards for mitigation of potential impacts in the existing code, as well as the 529 proposed code. 530 Randy Neprash 531 Mr. Neprash provided general and specific comments related to 532 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS, including specific suggestions for 533 ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS (Section 1010.01), dated Oct. 27, 2010, and 534 attached hereto and made a part hereof. 535 Specific to Open House and General Provisions Notice, Mr. Neprash recognized 536 that this was a difficult and often contentious issue, with new things learned as 537 new projects and developments appeared. Mr. Neprash spoke in support of a 538 balance of flexibility and consistency, while not setting up an onerous 539 administrative burden for staff. Mr. Neprash suggested at least two-tiered 540 approach with discretion on the part of City staff or the Planning Commission on 541 what triggered the second tier. Mr. Neprash suggested that Tier 1 would be the 542 standing notice procedure of 500’; with Tier 2 triggered by any major project 543 having the potential for significant negative impact over a wide area; and when 544 that trigger is activated, a much wider notification protocol would be put in place, 545 but not triggered until staff, the Planning Commission, or the City Council made a 546 determination of a significant negative impact. Mr. Neprash opined that this 547 would provide a system and process with consistency and flexibility and provide 548 a protocol to deal proactively and transparently with unusual or major projects. 549 Mr. Neprash opined that the notification was of significant import to Roseville 550 citizens, and suggested that the Commission may want to consider it outside the 551