2016-12-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 5 Mr. Paschke advised that it wasn’t frequent to have multiple principle buildings on 200 a site, but neither was it unusual, with several examples coming to mind in 201 Roseville, and thus codes in place to address such a situation. 202 Mr. Paschke emphasized that this code amendment is not being created for one 203 specific situation, but would serve the entire city and designated uses as 204 applicable. Mr. Paschke recognized the concerns being addressed by this 205 individual property owner, but stressed staff’s broader level analysis and 206 recommendation as to how it applied to other situations, not just this one instance. 207 Member Daire asked if the Ms. Steingraeber’s client considered their “primary” 208 public street to be the one from which access gained or if it was defined by the 209 owner/developer based on how best to maximize storage on that lot. 210 Ms. Steingraeber clarified their interpretation of “primary” was based on their 211 review of other city code provisions for consistency; and further considered 212 “primary” to be defined by where a property was addressed. 213 Member Daire asked if this was their position even if access to their building or 214 offices on the property were not available from that street. 215 Ms. Steingraeber responded that was something that could be discussed, but 216 stated her interpretation of “primary” was typically defined as a mailing address for 217 that property, generally matching up with the primary entrance or exit, even 218 though there were probably exceptions to that rule. 219 At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Steingraeber clarified that she was not 220 interpreting the definition of “primary” as where most pedestrian traffic was in this 221 instance; stating she’d define County Road C as the property address for this 222 building. 223 At the further request of Member Daire, Ms. Steingraeber stated her client’s 224 disagreement with city staff as to their interpretation of “primary.” 225 David Stokes 226 Mr. Stokes opined that County Road C had more vehicle traffic as well as 227 pedestrian traffic. 228 Specific to the address, and for the benefit of Member Daire, Ms. Steingraeber 229 stressed that, more than anything, they were aware that city code could not seek 230 an amendment for all situations. However, from their perspective, Ms. 231 Steingraeber asked that the commission recognize that conditions attached to a 232 Conditional Use provided more control. Ms. Steingraeber referenced other 233 examples and provided pictorial evidence as provided by Mr. Buss of other 234 industrial sites in Roseville where such a prohibition was not effectively put in 235 place (e.g. FedEx facilities at 2283 Terminal Road and 2452 Long Lake Road). 236 Mr. Buss emphasized that their trailers were “in transit” and on site for 237 maintenance, from 3 to 30 days, but all in general turning over frequently. Mr. 238 Buss clarified that they were not storing trailers on site; and their use was similar 239 to trucks docking as a part of regular business. 240 As it related to line 98 of the staff report and standards and criteria for motor 241 freight terminals, at the request of Member Daire, Mr. Buss stated they had no 242 problem at all with the proposed language. 243 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke reviewed two prior applications 244 for trailer storage on those respective sites, and requiring a 10’ setback for 245 firefighting safety requirements. However, Mr. Paschke clarified that in both of 246 those instances, the city came in after there was already trailer storage on each 247 site; and the property owner was required to seek an Interim Use permit within the 248 Twin Lakes area, and noted those were intended to be temporary storage options, 249