My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-10-27_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-10-27_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/18/2011 1:57:34 PM
Creation date
2/18/2011 1:57:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/27/2010
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 27, 2010 <br />Page 4 <br />Section H, Special or Object-oriented Buildings (page 3) <br />146 <br />Discussion included the addition of this section to address potential deviation from <br />147 <br />standards and the need for further clarification of language establishing a special <br />148 <br />variance procedure to avoid subjectivity in determining uniqueness serving as a catch-all, <br />149 <br />but based on specific discussions at previous meetings related to special design <br />150 <br />considerations, and further analysis by staff on the intent of “above and beyond” <br />151 <br />language. <br />152 <br />Section J, Garage Doors and Loading Docks <br />153 <br />Member Gisselquist suggested the need to give special consideration to previous <br />154 <br />language related to special buildings, such as fire stations, and practical location of <br />155 <br />garage doors in front. <br />156 <br />Members concurred that flexibility was needed in applying design standards for special <br />157 <br />uses in the District, indicating the need for clarity in revising language related to “special” <br />158 <br />buildings and the intent; whether such a building was proposed to be independent of the <br />159 <br />proscribed standards; or consider function of use, like a fire station, and the unique use <br />160 <br />requiring easy ingress/egress. <br />161 <br />Member Cook suggested that the Design Standards J, K, and L be applied consistently <br />162 <br />among all Districts in addressing aesthetics adjacent to residential properties. <br />163 <br />Member Wozniak disagreed on application of J other than for Institutional uses, opining <br />164 <br />that it didn’t apply in other Districts, and questioned the need for K, Rooftop Equipment, <br />165 <br />in this District since it was redundant since it was included in general Design Standards. <br />166 <br />Members concurred that it was duplicated. <br />167 <br />Member Wozniak suggested that Item L, Service Areas and Mechanical Equipment, <br />168 <br />should be applicable to all Districts as well. <br />169 <br />Mr. Paschke concurred that Item L seemed to make sense for all Districts, but from a <br />170 <br />staff perspective, he advised that it may be difficult to enforce unilaterally when related to <br />171 <br />certain utility aspects, such as Xcel Energy transformers and other major equipment that <br />172 <br />whose placement was dictated by function not aesthetics. Mr. Paschke noted that some <br />173 <br />municipalities had strong regulations on placement of such equipment which would be a <br />174 <br />standard he’d like to see applied across the board; however, he opined that the standard <br />175 <br />may be better served in one place than another; and staff felt it was most appropriate for <br />176 <br />Institutional uses, but it should be universal other than in single-family neighborhoods. <br />177 <br />Member Gottfried opined that it seemed logical to move anything appropriate in the <br />178 <br />general performance Standards for clarify and consistency to make as much fit into that <br />179 <br />broader context to provide clear intent of City expectations wherever possible, while <br />180 <br />recognizing that there may be some exceptions. <br />181 <br />Member Boerigter spoke in support of deleting Item K from Institutional Design <br />182 <br />Standards, as they were addressed in the general Performance Standards section. <br />183 <br />Member Gottfried questioned the maximum building height requirement of sixty feet (60’) <br />184 <br />in N, Dimensional Standards Table 1006.1 and any existing buildings that would become <br />185 <br />noncompliance if so stipulated. <br />186 <br />Mr. Paschke noted that this would address a building height of approximately five (5) <br />187 <br />stories; with no existing uses in the Institutional District that would exceed that height <br />188 <br />limitation. Mr. Paschke clarified that steeples were addressed differently than a primary <br />189 <br />structure, similar to current code, and was among supplemental regulations still under <br />190 <br />development. <br />191 <br />MOTION <br />192 <br />Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Wozniak to RECOMMEND TO THE <br />193 <br />CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of DRAFT INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT requirements as <br />194 <br />presented on October 27, 2010, establishing new regulations under Title 10, Zoning <br />195 <br />Regulations, pertaining to the Institutional District; based on details of the staff <br />196 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.