Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 <br />Page 4 <br />Robert K. Buss, Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., (looking to purchase 2500 <br />147 <br />County Road C) <br />148 <br />Mr. Buss stated the intent was to look at the amount of space available for storage <br />149 <br />on that site. Mr. Buss opined this would not adversely impact the maneuverability <br />150 <br />on site. <br />151 <br />Member Kimble asked staff if there was an existing issue with outdoor semi-trailer <br />152 <br />storage or if this was applicable only to motor freight terminals, and if so how it <br />153 <br />was applicable to and consistent with other industrial use properties relative to <br />154 <br />parking between principal buildings and an adjacent public street. <br />155 <br />Mr. Paschke clarified that city code is consistent as it relates to outdoor storage, <br />156 <br />whether in industrial zones or in other designated uses; with parking in front of a <br />157 <br />building, under today’s design standards for building-forward design, designated <br />158 <br />for employee or visitor parking; and parking at the rear and side of a property <br />159 <br />intended for other parking uses. Mr. Paschke further clarified that this language <br />160 <br />was specific to outdoor storage on a site, under which the parking of semi-trailers <br />161 <br />was considered. <br />162 <br />Member Kimble asked if this proposed text amendment by staff had been <br />163 <br />reviewed as a whole throughout Roseville, or if it served to diminish property <br />164 <br />values and ability to use them in such a way that Roseville could end up with <br />165 <br />vacant, unusable properties in the industrial zoned area that would be bound by <br />166 <br />this issue. <br />167 <br />Mr. Paschke responded that any code amendments now on the books or adopted <br />168 <br />in the future could create non-conforming situations. However, Mr. Paschke <br />169 <br />clarified that this didn’t require them to achieve compliance unless they were <br />170 <br />making such significant improvements on sit that it triggered such compliance, in <br />171 <br />accordance with language of state statute address legal, nonconformities. In this <br />172 <br />instance, Mr. Paschke clarified that a pre-existing, nonconforming situation was in <br />173 <br />place that couldn’t be addressed as current city code didn’t allow that use in an <br />174 <br />Industrial District, thus staff’s recommended text amendments to address the <br />175 <br />situation. <br />176 <br />At the request of Member Kimble, Mr. Paschke addressed how staff defined <br />177 <br />“primary” public streets. In this instance, Mr. Paschke noted that staff was not <br />178 <br />supportive of “primary” or other language related to outdoor storage, when code <br />179 <br />discusses placement of buildings with a primary street based on how a building is <br />180 <br />aligned related to a street, not based on where the most pedestrian traffic may be, <br />181 <br />but typically applicable to how the property is addressed. Mr. Paschke reiterated <br />182 <br />that outdoor storage requirements in Roseville’s current code had been created <br />183 <br />for the purpose of not allowing storage of items in front of a building, whether <br />184 <br />considered the principle or secondary use or on a corner lot. In this situation, as <br />185 <br />with others, Mr. Paschke advised that staff could not support such a consideration <br />186 <br />with current code language in place. <br />187 <br />Member Cunningham asked what staff considered to be a negative for inserting <br />188 <br />the word “primary” before “public street,” especially when there are multiple or <br />189 <br />different buildings on a site. As with this lot, Member Cunningham asked if it was <br />190 <br />typical or frequent to have multiple principle buildings on a site or this type of lot. <br />191 <br />Mr. Paschke reiterated that the conflict was with current design standards related <br />192 <br />to building placement, as well as allowing storage of trucks on a corner lot on two <br />193 <br />sides of the building in this case. Mr. Paschke noted this was not desired by the <br />194 <br />city, thus their adoption of outdoor storage regulations several years ago, with the <br />195 <br />express purpose of discouraging debris or other storage items in front of a <br />196 <br />building that would not serve to enhance Roseville, and not considered as an <br />197 <br />appropriate use on the front side of a building, with the side and rear yards <br />198 <br />reserved for the more active component of a building use, not only for parking. <br />199 <br /> <br />