pm_860108 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 1986 Page 5 Mr. Honchell pointed out that he is concerned that often times the averages utilized don't take into consideration the problem of winter snow coverage in parking lots in Minnesota. Berry stated that after viewing the parking situation in Seattle, she is very comfortable with Roseville's parking situation. Wiski stated that a process now exists for a developer to meet a minimum; however, it is important to utilize a process that can ascertain whether additional parking beyond the mnimum is required. Wiski suggested that the Planning Commission divide the issue into two motions dealing with each paragraph separately. DeBenedet moved, seconded by Berry, approval of the amended Paragraph 9 as submitted. Roll Call, Ayes: Nays: Dressler, Berry, DeBenedet, Johnson, and Wiski. None. Berry moved the second paragraph, with the amended language relating to the accredited traffic engineer. The motion died for lack of a second. DeBenedet moved, seconded by Johnson, that the language in the second paragraph be "returned to the Council without a recommenda- tion", but if approved, the language should state that "the engineer should be I.T.E. accredited". Discussion Dressler asked what the purpose was of forwarding an item to the Council without a recommendation. Dressler stated she was opposed to this amendment, and that it should be voted up or down. Johnson and Berry discussed their interpretation of the motion, and pointed out that this was an important issue that deserved additional discussion at the Council level. Wiski stated that there are basically three items that need to be considered in this case. 1. Should the process be streamlined. 2. Should the City not require additional parking when it isn't really needed. 3. Should the Planning Commission continue to playa role in the parking variance process.