2016-11-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 6 thus the Interim Use process. As part of staff’s review, Mr. Paschke advised that 250 the Fire Marshal had applied specific conditions related to the need for a 10’ 251 setback for those specific uses for long-term outdoor storage of trailers. Mr. 252 Paschke opined that same application was used in this case as well, particularly 253 the 10’ setback for semi-trailers from adjacent properties. 254 Therefore, Member Murphy noted this 10’ setback requirement is not inconsistent 255 with past actions of the Planning Commission. 256 In the hierarchy of their concerns, Ms. Steingraeber noted this was clear to them 257 and their client; and in the ranking of concerns, the setback issue is at the bottom. 258 However, Ms. Steingraeber emphasized to the Commission that a developer is 259 interested in investing significant money to make this site work for their purposes; 260 but with having a code amendment prohibiting storage along all public streets 261 around the building, it severely limited uses for this property for this client and 262 other potential owners and/or developers needing parking and/or storage for 263 semi-trailers. Therefore, Ms. Steingraeber opined that it seemed appropriate to 264 meet individually with these owners to find a solution; and since their client had 265 suggested multiple options to meet zoning code compliance and make the site 266 aesthetically appealing, that those options be given fair consideration. 267 With access to the property off Walnut Street and a lack of additional curb cuts, 268 Member Murphy stated he found it difficult to wedge a “primary” definition in place 269 since there was no access or a street address off County Road C, creating 270 conflicting needs and realities from his perspective. 271 Chair Boguszewski referenced an earlier thought brought up by Member Murphy 272 that given that feature of the property, this situation could be appropriate for a 273 variance process versus some other approach to a resolution. Chair 274 Boguszewski stated that he was uncomfortable with this being silent in the current 275 city code and philosophically concerned with an attempt to apply a stricter or 276 looser interpretation with subsequent action and running a risk of things being 277 done as a result that were not in the city’s best interest. In general, Chair 278 Boguszewski stated his preference would be to strip out language dealing with the 279 parking area, as he was not comfortable with that approach to the text. 280 In pursuing the Variance route, Ms. Steingraeber noted this asked the property 281 owner to pursue a two-step process versus one-step for a Conditional Use that, 282 once granted applied conditions to that permit. Ms. Steingraeber stated that, from 283 her perspective that seemed more efficient for the city and developers/property 284 owners. While agreeing that the Variance process worked, Ms. Steingraeber 285 opined that it created extra layers that could deter owners from wanting to 286 proceed with such a process. 287 Chair Boguszewski recognized Ms. Steingraeber’s perspective. However, from 288 his perspective as a volunteer on a citizen advisory board, he noted he weighed 289 the efficiency of the process versus the protection of character, look, feel and 290 protection of Roseville. Based on that perspective, Chair Boguszewski noted that 291 efficiency didn’t always provide checks and balances to maintain control and 292 guidance by having codes in the first place. As a counter argument, Chair 293 Boguszewski agreed that in the overall mission, the extra step in the Variance 294 process may prove unduly burdensome to some applicants. 295 Mr. Stokes pointed out on the displayed site plan the area along Walnut Street 296 where the developer intended significant improvements, including stormwater 297 management and a berm that were intended to make the project more appealing 298 for their site as well as the city. 299 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at approximately 7:11 p.m., with no 300 one else appearing for or against. 301