Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 <br />Page 7 <br />Member Wozniak expressed interest in excluding smaller, individual receptacles, <br />306 <br />but that enclosures would improve park aesthetics for larger dumpsters, and <br />307 <br />should only be required when major modifications were considered to a park or <br />308 <br />area in which enclosures could be easily located. <br />309 <br />Mr. Paschke clarified that previous discussions had been related to removal of <br />310 <br />temporary or seasonal dumpsters that were removed and then returned next <br />311 <br />spring once the new code was enacted, with them then requiring screening. Mr. <br />312 <br />Paschke noted that this was a repeated complaint throughout Roseville and <br />313 <br />handled by staff with no current code in place that would allow enforcement to <br />314 <br />keep receptacles from becoming a nuisance due to their location and/or visibility, <br />315 <br />as well as neighborho0d complaints from trash blowing out of the receptacles. <br />316 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that, from a planning perspective, the parks should have <br />317 <br />the same conformity standards as dumpsters in other districts to allow consistent <br />318 <br />code enforcement and regulations, and opined that no great difficulties should be <br />319 <br />encountered in complying with those regulations by the Parks and Recreation <br />320 <br />Department. Mr. Paschke advised that it was not staff’s intent to step on the <br />321 <br />Park and Recreation Department’s toes, but that the intent was to address <br />322 <br />design standards up front and consistent throughout the City whether on public <br />323 <br />or private property, while being open to modification and allowing flexibility where <br />324 <br />so indicated. Mr. Paschke opined that it didn’t seem fair to exclude city-owned <br />325 <br />property from private property when regulating design standards to achieve <br />326 <br />uniformity and consistent code enforcement. <br />327 <br />Ayes: 3 <br />328 <br />Nays: 2 <br />329 <br />Motion carried. <br />330 <br />6. New Public Hearings <br />331 <br />a. PLANNING FILE 10-029 <br />332 <br />Request by Meritex for approval of outdoor storage of rubble as an <br />333 <br />INTERIM USE at 2295 Walnut Street to allow the pile created by the <br />334 <br />demolition for the former building to remain until October 31, 2011. <br />335 <br />Vice Chair Boerigter continued the Public Hearing for PLANNING FILE 10-029 at <br />336 <br />7:35 p.m. <br />337 <br />Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the request of Meritex Enterprises, Inc., <br />338 <br />2295 Walnut Street, for an INTERIM USE to leave the existing pile of rubble on <br />339 <br />the property through the 2011 construction season. Mr. Lloyd noted that the <br />340 <br />building had been demolished and that the intent of the owner was to sell the <br />341 <br />demolition materials for recycling as base construction materials, rather than <br />342 <br />shipping them off to a landfill. <br />343 <br />Staff recommended approval of the proposed INTERIM USE, subject to certain <br />344 <br />conditions, as detailed in the staff report dated November 17, 2010. <br />345 <br />Discussion included a history of the demolition materials not being addressed <br />346 <br />previously, due to staff not being aware of the owners non-compliance with <br />347 <br />demolition permit provisions, and due to the construction market slowing and the <br />348 <br />sale of materials not taking place in the anticipated timeframe; and staff then <br />349 <br />becoming more aggressive with enforcement prior to instituting an abatement <br />350 <br />process. <br />351 <br />Further discussion included the proposed use of the vacant land, currently being <br />352 <br />marketed as primarily industrial property as a whole or subdivided; remaining <br />353 <br />materials not being of great significance compared to the original amount of <br />354 <br />material; other parts of the demolition, such as seeding or restoration, still <br />355 <br />pending; and length of time the demolition materials had been on site, estimated <br />356 <br />by staff to be since mid-summer of 2010. <br />357 <br /> <br />