CC_Minutes_2016_11-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 14, 2016 Page 7 this allowed a review for each individual property and use versus a blanket condi- tion saying “No Parking” on the site at all. Mayor Roe asked if there were exceptions to Section 37.a from staff’s perspec- tive. Mr. Paschke responded that there could be, but this particular section dealt specif- ically with outdoor semi-trailer storage, and other “outdoor storage” could involve numerous things. Mr. Paschke opined that this particular section took that “out- door storage” to a different level in the process. Through application of city code to future situations, Mayor Roe asked if there may be problems if a given site and situation where outdoor storage might be al- lowed between a building and adjacent street if some type of mitigation was done. If recognizing the proposed language as the default – no storage between a build- ing and any street – Mayor Roe questioned if this set the city up for unintended consequences or served to preserve more flexibility on a site. Mr. Paschke noted he couldn’t respond either one way or the other, but reiterated the preference for review on a case by case basis. Based on his understanding of Mayor Roe’s question, City Attorney Mark Gaughan advised if the language was retained as recommended by staff for Sec- tion 37.a (lines 78-84 of the RCA), the city could attach a condition permitting semi-trailer storage between a principle building and adjacent public street if ap- plicable to a given site and use. In trying to understand the language and future uses, Mayor Roe advised he was trying to ensure the process going forward for a Conditional Use and/or Variance to facilitate similar applications. Councilmember Willmus noted this discussion and staff’s responses were con- sistent with the discussions held at the Planning Commission as well. Councilmember Laliberte stated she would err on the side of consistency with language found elsewhere in city code; and also spoke in support of utilizing the Variance process for unique situations that may arise. Since the City of Roseville is so developed, Councilmember Laliberte opined that there may be many proper- ties with unique situations, and that language could not be developed tonight that would address each of those issues going forward. Councilmember Laliberte stat- ed that she recognized the scheduling issue brought forward by one applicant’s legal counsel speaking tonight and at previous Planning Commission meetings and their situation, but stated the City Council should also not be making general citywide decisions under that rationale.