2012_0827_Packet as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

applicant after the preparation and distribution of the staff report and staff’s recommended 51 conditions. Mr. Lloyd advised that, apparently after the applicant’s receipt of various bids, and 52 the intent to store mostly passenger vehicles rather than higher profile vehicles outside, the 53 applicant was seeking that deviation. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff’s recommendation 54 stood at eight feet (8’), but was at the discretion of the Commission. 55 At the request of Member Lester as to type of vehicles proposed for outdoor storage, Mr. 56 Lloyd suggested verifying that with the applicant. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Police Department 57 likely received a broad range of vehicles through forfeiture and needing storage, although 58 most are probably passenger cars and trucks, since the Use period was for up to five (5) 59 years, the type of vehicle became an unknown. 60 Applicant’s Representative, Ron Christenson 61 Mr. Christenson advised that they were in agreement with staff’s report other than for the 62 condition regarding height of the screening fence. Mr. Christenson advised that the cost for a 63 six foot (6’) fence would be approximately $60,000; and eight foot (8’) fence well in excess of 64 $100,000, prompting their request for a shorter fence. Mr. Christenson noted that a wooden 65 fence would be in excess of $250,000. 66 Mr. Christenson advised that they store approximately eighty (80) vehicles for the Police 67 Departments in the Cities of Roseville and Maplewood; and to-date the largest vehicle was a 68 van. Mr. Christenson stated that a six foot (6’) fence would cover ninety percent (90%) of the 69 vehicles stored; even though there have been several parcel vans seized in the past. 70 However, if those type of vehicles are seized and stored, Mr. Christenson advised that they 71 could be stored at the rear of the property and not visible off the lot. Mr. Christianson noted 72 that there were currently semi trailers parked on the corners in that area anyway; and their 73 intent was to improve the property. 74 Mr. Christenson noted that the City’s Police Department could confirm that the building on this 75 property has been broken into three (3) times, with wiring and copper stolen. Mr. Christenson 76 noted that the Roseville Police Department had stepped up monitoring that area and was 77 doing a great job now; and opined that the Department was appreciative of this storage 78 compared to former storage under the City’s water tower. 79 Mr. Christenson advised that the only thing visible to the public would be antique motor cycles 80 and classic cars on display in the inside of the building. Mr. Christenson noted that they had 81 been in business in Roseville since 1991 and wanted to remain invested in the community; 82 expressing pleasure in being able to work with both the cities of Maplewood and Roseville. 83 At the request of Member Boguszewski regarding the procedure if the Commission chose to 84 review staff’s recommended condition, Mr. Lloyd advised that their motion could simply 85 include that revision and direct staff accordingly. 86 At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Lloyd responded to staff’s rationale in preferring an 87 eight foot (8’) versus a six foot (6’) high fence was based only on aesthetics. However, if the 88 applicant is stating that they will store any larger items in the rear, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff 89 would be more amenable to the shorter height fence. Mr. Lloyd opined that there was no 90 reason for not allowing the deviation under these circumstances; however, since any and all 91 fences are offensive and no one is interested in installing an opaque fence as prescribed by 92 City Code, any deviation by the Commission to height and opacity issues may open the door 93 for future deviations to reduce those requirements as well. Mr. Lloyd noted that, since this is 94 an Interim Use and was temporary any complaints from future applicants could be addressed 95 accordingly, diminishing the risk for setting a precedent. 96 Member Cunningham questioned if a shorter height fence could serve to increase the crime 97 rate by allowing access by climbing over the fence to access the impound lot. 98 Mr. Christenson recognized that as a valid question; noting that current vehicles were stored 99 indoor, but it was becoming very cost-prohibitive. Mr. Christenson stated that he had advised 100 both cities that video cameras would be installed on site; but opined that if someone wanted to 101