2010-10-27_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 Page 20 standards, using as an example, the broad statement related to odor, with no clear 957 standard indicated, and the purpose of the statement. Member Boerigter questioned if 958 the City wanted to have discretion or whether a use had to violate some clear, particular 959 standards defined here or in some other law or ordinance. 960 Mr. Paschke responded that he didn’t think these standards were heightened, but were 961 general that every business or use should achieve, not above and beyond, with those 962 requiring heightened standards clearly listed with those specific areas they needed to 963 meet. 964 Member Wozniak suggested additional language related to controlling emissions or odor 965 leaving the premises, and specific applicable standards (lines 30-42). 966 Member Boerigter noted the “Radiation” section (lines 61-62) and its reference to 967 operations within state and federal regulations; and questioned whether the City was 968 obligated to say it or not; but recognizing that the language wasn’t adding anything, only 969 providing for a finding to deny the ability to operate that particular business, the same as 970 any other governmental agencies. Member Boerigter opined that in other areas, they 971 seemed more explicit, while Mr. Neprash was proposing broader, more generic language 972 that wasn’t as clear, and that made him less comfortable; opining that the City didn’t 973 establish levels and wasn’t enforcing them unless it was clearly pointed out that what was 974 being done was wrong. 975 Member Gottfried opined that it was the City’s expectation that a use met all federal and 976 state laws, and if these standards were simply used to educate staff, it was a useful tool; 977 however, if intended as a measurement tool to raise a standard to a higher level, what 978 authority or qualifications did the City have to do so. Member Gottfried suggested that 979 references be made to minimum expectations, and if the City wanted to raise the bar, it 980 use great caution in how that raised bar would be administered. 981 Further discussion included other standards and their meaning from staff’s perspective, 982 whether heightened requirements or providing a minimum standard for reference and 983 consistency and clearly stated in City Code unless the City reduced thresholds from state 984 requirements; industry standards or standards based on professional planning 985 experience where there was no definite levels of state or county standards; and use of 986 those standards to send a clear message to developers to achieve or exceed minimum 987 standards. 988 Member Gottfried suggested that those areas needed further review to ensure they 989 captured consistency and referenced specific statute or rules for a specific standard. 990 Mr. Paschke noted that, in the exhaustive review of code standards, there was no state 991 standard for smoke and particulate matter, thus the need for creation of a standard for 992 the City that was fair, while also protecting Roseville, with the proposed language having 993 been crafted by staff and the City Attorney. Mr. Paschke advised that staff would not 994 recommend referencing specific sections of law or statute, as they changed from time to 995 time, thus the recommended language referring to those standards in general or by 996 agency or state statute. Mr. Paschke advised that municipalities needed to review and 997 possibly modify their ordinances annually or periodically when referencing statute or law, 998 to be consistent in practice and enforcement. 999 Mr. Paschke noted, as an example similar to some and particular matter, as well as odor, 1000 “noise” was not meticulously addressed by any state agency, and questioned if the City 1001 should have a specific standard, or a general statement, with staff supporting a line item 1002 to address it. 1003 Member Gottfried observed that staff was attempting to distinguish those standards not 1004 having another agency or higher authority to enforce those standards, by creating 1005 standards based on industry or peer planning professional standards. 1006 Mr. Paschke noted that his area of expertise was not that of a “noise specialist” but that 1007 standards had been developed by other professionals, currently in Minnesota by the 1008