2012_0521_Packet as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Lester sought clarification if the applicant repaired buses and semis, would they not be defined 98 as “inoperable.” 99 Chair Boerigter opined that not necessarily since this Conditional Use related only to outdoor storage and 100 they have a building that could house inoperable vehicles. 101 Mr. Paschke concurred, as long as the facility use was in compliance with City Code, with maintenance 102 for fleet and worker’s vehicles allowed, since the Code didn’t preclude that, and actually supported it. 103 However, Mr. Paschke clarified that Code defined what outdoor storage allowed and where it was 104 located; what could and couldn’t be stored out side; and other parameters defining that use. Mr. Paschke 105 advised that the use would be permitted and monitored as with any other use in Roseville; with staff 106 monitoring situations to garner compliance. Mr. Paschke advised that a Conditional Use provided a higher 107 level of authority for the City to revoke them if not kept in compliance. 108 For extra clarification, Mr. Lloyd noted the difference in a bus in the yard that didn’t start and needed to be 109 moved into the garage since it was temporarily not operational, but was intended to be brought back into 110 service versus letting the grass grow around it and remaining inoperable, or abandoned or scavenged for 111 parts. 112 Member Cunningham questioned if there were time guidelines for how long inoperable vehicles could be 113 kept on site. 114 Mr. Lloyd advised that there was nothing currently in City Code to draw a clear distinction; and depending 115 on circumstances, it was hard to define a rationale timeline. Mr. Lloyd advised that the Planning 116 Commission could provide a recommended condition as part of their approval, but noted that he would be 117 hard pressed to offer any guidance for such a timeframe. 118 Mr. Paschke advised, from a staff perspective, that it was key for them to understand the issue and 119 determine why a vehicle was sitting out for any length of time, and to work with the property owner on 120 compliance. Mr. Paschke advised that it was typical for adjacent property owners to serve as staff’s eyes 121 for them, in addition to staff observations. From a personal perspective, Mr. Paschke opined that it was 122 not unreasonable for a vehicle to be outside for a week or so, especially if parts were not immediately 123 available. 124 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Dufresne advised that they would typically work on the trucks 125 in the garage. 126 Public Comment 127 attached hereto and made a part hereto, As a Bench Handout, Mr. Lloyd provided correspondence with 128 Ms. Terry Gilberstadt, Corporate Secretary and Manager of Horton Transportation, Horton Holding, Inc., 129 2565 Walnut Street, Roseville, MN, as adjacent property owner and specific to this requested use. 130 Ms. Terry Gilberstadt, Corporate Secretary and Manager, Horton Transportation, 2565 Walnut 131 Street (adjacent to subject site) 132 Ms. Gilberstadt referenced the correspondence as noted; and provided photos to display of the current 133 property situation with weeds, inappropriate fencing, and other debris on the subject property. Ms. 134 Gilberstadt noted that their property, Horton Holding, served as their corporate headquarters, serving 135 national and international visitors, and that they kept their property maintained and aesthetically 136 presentable accordingly. Ms. Gilberstadt expressed her appreciation of the new owner’s intent to improve 137 the property; however, she expressed concern that current conditions may continue unless the 138 Conditional Use could effectively address the majority of their concerns. At a minimum, Ms. Gilberstadt 139 requested that the new owner mow the weeds; and if using the back portion of the parking lot, tar it to 140 keep dust blowing into their office. Ms. Gilberstadt noted how aesthetically pleasing the adjacent golf 141 course was to their office; even though they had been living with the current conditions at the subject 142 parcel since they constructed their Horton headquarters in 2001. 143 Member Boguszewski clarified that Ms. Gilberstadt and Horton Holding may be in support of this 144 Conditional Use application, if the applicant was able to purchase the property and make obvious 145 improvements. 146