My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0812
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0812
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2013 9:54:14 AM
Creation date
8/21/2013 9:54:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/12/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,August 12,2013 <br /> Page 14 <br /> lowing the language, it was limiting the ability for property owners to store such <br /> materials. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Etten, Mr. Paschke provided examples of typi- <br /> cal situations that may occur. Mr. Paschke noted that when an area transitioned <br /> from Industrial use to Office/Business Park through the rezoning process, a multi- <br /> tenant building could become nonconforming, with a number of scenarios that <br /> could create concerns with pre-existing nonconforming uses. <br /> At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke reviewed the triggering mechanisms <br /> impacting those legal, nonconforming uses if a building is vacant for 365 days or <br /> more requiring them to conform to new regulations. Mr. Paschke advised that the <br /> issue was in interpreting uses in a multi-tenant building and similarities of pre- <br /> existing uses with new tenants and how and when that trigger was met. By going <br /> through this process and leaving the language intact, Mr. Paschke opined that it <br /> remained consistent with nonconformity rules of State Statutes, but allowed ap- <br /> plication of new regulations related to screening that the City could enforce. <br /> Councilmember McGehee stated that her problem was in the preference for re- <br /> zoning and area as Office/Business Park from its current Industrial designation to <br /> transition as buildings became empty or changed function; but if allowing some- <br /> thing as a Conditional Use with someone new coming in with a similar use to an <br /> existing use, on what basis could the City deny that similar use even though that is <br /> not the direction the City was choosing to go in the future. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the City may not be able to deny that use, but it could apply <br /> conditions for approval under a Conditional Use process. <br /> City Attorney Mark Gaughan concurred with Mayor Roe's statement. <br /> Mr. Paschke noted that the City did not have the ability to prevent a new owner to <br /> take over a pre-existing use no different than taking over an operating business, <br /> advising that the use would continue. <br /> While understanding that process, Councilmember McGehee opined that by mak- <br /> ing this conditional, if there were already three existing businesses in the Of- <br /> fice/Business Park area storing loose materials outside, with a third entity desiring <br /> to locate there as an Office use, it seemed counterintuitive to not seek standards <br /> that would lean toward the Office/Business Park uses versus Light Industrial Park <br /> uses; not allowing the City to move in the preferred direction as envisioned. <br /> When allowing such great flexibility, Councilmember McGehee opined that it <br /> seemed to create a negative impact on that vision. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.