CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 11, 2016 Page 13 ing a new hoine for their family company, and selected Roseville based on their reputation as a welcoining community. Ms. Vogel noted their involvement in ed- ucation programs in schools, employment fairs at local colleges and other efforts to inform about this growing industry and to provide jobs. In hindsight, Ms. Vogel opined that their error had been in not immediately apply- ing for rezoning of their parcel in the first place. Ms. Vogel noted that their busi- ness had been from the beginning and continued to be interested in a long-tenn solution, and throughout a process of questionnaires, open houses, and other in- teraction, everyone was in agreement as a community that the CU application was indicated, and accessory use for limited production and processing. Ms. Vogel asked that the City Council consider the CU application independently of past discussions and IU issues with the neighborhood, and hold their company and its operations to that use. Ms. Vogel stated that it was difficult for their small business to not feel they were being punished when they were seeking the help and support of their new com- munity. Ms. Vogel noted the unforiunate situations that had developed for all parties, including them personally, their einployees, the neighbors, and entire community. Ms. Vogel opined that so much negative time and energy had been spent to-date and some had proven devastating for their business and uncomforta- ble as their employees were continually on camera by neighbors observing them whenever they were on site at the business. Ms. Vogel stated that their business needed to focus on operations in order to thrive. Specific to the recommendation for a condition to keep production area doors shut during operations, Ms. Vogel reviewed their uses for liinited production and coin- pared it to other uses in a CMU-1 designated zoning district, questioning such a blanket statement in this condition. Ms. Vogel sought some reasonable considera- tion rather than neighbors through the city attempting to control every business; noting that there were sufficient city code provisions in place related to noise and envirorunent that would address any concerns that may come up and serve to ad- dress any fears or unknowns for adjacent residential neighbors. Ms. Vogel asked the City Council to apply the same conditions for a CU that they would for any other use in this spectrum, and just as those residential neighbors shouldn't need to close their windows, their business should be given some leniency for using their coinmon sense rather than simply setting up another opportunity for future miscommunication among parties. Attorney Crain In response to Councilmember Laliberte's initial question regarding the Vogel re- sponse to Planning Commission recoinmended conditions, Mr. Crain noted that they were inconsistent with those recommended by staff advising the City Coun- cil to follow city code for CU applications for screening in front and back and simply moving on. Mr. Crain questioned why the Commission made the decision