Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, November 17, 2010 <br />Page 8 <br />Commissioners expressed frustration that representatives of Meritex were not <br />358 <br />present at tonight’s meeting to provide additional comment. <br />359 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that, in addition to those comments received identified in <br />360 <br />Attachment C of the staff report, one additional e-mail comment had been fielded <br />361 <br />by staff earlier today from an adjacent property owner who was supportive of the <br />362 <br />application provided the proposed timeframe was not permanent and would be <br />363 <br />addressed in the suggested time <br />364 <br />Public Comment <br />365 <br />Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m., with no one <br />366 <br />appearing for or against. <br />367 <br />Commissioners discussed and concurred that there was no rationale to extend <br />368 <br />the approval for almost a year, and that the applicant should be encouraged to <br />369 <br />remove remaining materials by the end of July of 2011 at the latest, since it had <br />370 <br />remained in nonconformance in the first place, as outdoor storage is not allowed <br />371 <br />without a Conditional Use permit. <br />372 <br />Mr. Paschke suggested that the property owner may not have been aware of that <br />373 <br />storage as something prohibited under code, since it had been on site for some <br />374 <br />time before staff became aware of it and initiated correspondence with the <br />375 <br />property owner. Mr. Paschke noted that the property owner’s contractor may <br />376 <br />have failed to communicate that information through the process or that <br />377 <br />presumptions had been made by one or the other party about the responsibility <br />378 <br />for removal. <br />379 <br />MOTION <br />380 <br />Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Cook to RECOMMEND TO <br />381 <br />THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the proposed INTERIM USE, pursuant to <br />382 <br />City Code, Section 1013.09 (Interim Uses); based on the comments of the <br />383 <br />staff report and subject to conditions detailed in Section 7 of the Request <br />384 <br />for Planning Commission Action dated November 17, 2010; <br />amended as <br />385 <br />follows: <br />386 <br /> Conditions 6.c revised to read: “This approval shall expire at the end of <br /> <br />387 <br />July 31, 2011, or upon the complete removal of the rubble material, <br />388 <br />whichever comes first. The property owner shall incur a fine of $10 for <br />389 <br />each day, or portion thereof, the rubble material remains on the <br />390 <br />property after October July 31, 2011.” <br />391 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />392 <br />Nays: 0 <br />393 <br />Motion carried. <br />394 <br />b. PROJECT FILE 0017 <br />395 <br />Request by the Roseville Planning Division to adopt new regulations for <br />396 <br />Title 10, Zoning Regulations of the City Code pertaining to Performance <br />397 <br />Standards <br />398 <br />Vice Chair Boerigter continued the Public Hearing for PROJECT FILE 0017 at <br />399 <br />7:50 p.m. <br />400 <br />City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the modifications to the PROEPRTY <br />401 <br />PERFORMANCE STANDARDS section of the new zoning code since initial <br />402 <br />discussions by the Planning Commission and public comment heard on October <br />403 <br />27, 2010. Mr. Paschke reviewed summarized those revisions, detailed in the <br />404 <br />Request for Planning Commission Action dated November 17, 2010, and <br />405 <br />recommendations of the City Attorney. Mr. Paschke noted that it was determined <br />406 <br />that some other formatting issues remained pending, in addition to providing <br />407 <br />provisions better suited to other areas of the document or required in multiple <br />408 <br />areas. <br />409 <br /> <br />