2016-11-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 3 preference that all parking and storage issues be addressed as conditions for a 97 specific property, opining the issue would come up frequently for properties 98 having more than one public street surrounding their parcel. Alternatively, if not 99 acceptable to the city, Ms. Steingraeber asked that at a minimum, “primary” be 100 inserted before “public street;” with the rationale being that not only one street 101 could impact a parcel in most instances. Specific to the setback requirements, 102 Ms. Steingraeber noted a 5’ versus 10’ setback requirement would be consistent 103 with the remainder of city code, opining that made sense, while respecting the 104 city’s position on that issue. However, overall, Ms. Steingraeber asked that the 105 city consider where storage was most appropriate on any given lot and specific to 106 a Conditional Use, unless agreeing to insert “primary” before “public street.” 107 In being sensitive to this request applying to all properties in Roseville designated 108 Industrial Use, Member Murphy clarified that Ms. Steingraeber, on behalf of her 109 client, was suggesting a Conditional Use application that would be filed with the 110 property in perpetuity. Member Murphy asked Ms. Steingraeber’s thoughts on 111 using the Variance option for particular applications needing stricter standards 112 than allowed by city code. Member Murphy opined the Variance Board was 113 receptive to unique situations for use of properties, and further opined that he 114 found that a more flexible approach to take; and asked if Ms. Steingraeber and 115 her client had considered that versus a permanent condition in a Conditional Use 116 application. 117 Ms. Steingraeber stated they had considered that, and were amenable to 118 discussing a Variance as a possibility. However, when considering the amount of 119 work required for a Variance versus a specific condition applied to a Conditional 120 Use for an applicant, while similar in this client’s case, Ms. Steingraeber 121 expressed hope that if their client submitted a Conditional Use application, the city 122 would provide a list of conditions that the applicant could comply with versus the 123 lengthier period for submission and review of a Variance application. 124 From his recall of previous discussions, Member Murphy noted that 125 commissioners were concerned with a condition being filed in perpetuity with a 126 properly; noting that a Variance would be similar and only reconsidered if an 127 appeal was filed and contested before the City Council. Therefore, Member 128 Murphy opined that a Variance seemed a timelier and straightforward approach 129 with the requester listing the exact things found burdensome and seeking relief 130 from them through a Variance. 131 Ms. Steingraeber stated her client would be willing to consider a Variance 132 process; however, asked that even with such a procedure, they would find it 133 helpful if “primary” was inserted in the language under discussion tonight. Ms. 134 Steingraeber opined this would give developers/owners assurances that they can 135 anticipate their intended use of the property versus a Variance application 136 process, often adding considerable time to the development timeline. 137 Member Daire asked Ms. Steingraeber their rationale in requesting a 5’ versus 10’ 138 setback in light of Fire Marshal recommendations. Member Daire asked if a 5’ 139 versus 10’ setback would further reduce drive space and maneuverability for 140 semi-trucks and trailers on the site. 141 Ms. Steingraeber responded that in this particular section of city code (1006.5), 142 there were already setback requirements of 5’; and asked that consistency be 143 followed with other portions of code, even though they recognized staff’s 144 recommendations to keep the setback at 10’. 145 146