My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-05-02_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-05-02_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/18/2012 2:22:48 PM
Creation date
12/18/2012 2:22:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/2/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 <br />Page 3 <br />reasonable advancement of screening on the existing fence for height and screening <br />92 <br />material to bring the existing non-conforming fence into existing Code standards. <br />93 <br />Mr. Lloyd reviewed the process used to evaluate criteria as detailed in Section 5 of the <br />94 <br />staff report; and subsequent recommendation by the Planning Division for APPROVAL of <br />95 <br />the proposed CONDITIONAL USE, as detailed in Section 7 of the Request for Planning <br />96 <br />Commission Action dated May 2, 2012. <br />97 <br />Member Olson advised that he would be recusing himself from the discussion and vote <br />98 <br />on this item due to a potential conflict of interest; and was duly noted by Chair Boerigter. <br />99 <br />Mr. Lloyd clarified that the purpose of the Conditional Use was specific to the outdoor <br />100 <br />storage of a bus fleet similar to that of the current non-conforming use for storage of truck <br />101 <br />trailers, and not allowing for outdoor storage of granular materials or other prohibited <br />102 <br />materials not allowed under City Code. <br />103 <br />Chair Boerigter asked if the Commission were to approve the Conditional Use for outdoor <br />104 <br />storage of the bus fleet that may be revoked in the future due to non-compliance, would <br />105 <br />the property owner have the right to revert use to store trailers as a continuing non- <br />106 <br />conforming use; or would this Conditional Use supersede that previous use since it is <br />107 <br />essentially a different use. <br />108 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that if this Conditional Use was approved, and for any future reason, it <br />109 <br />was revoked or went away if not used, any subsequent use of the property for outdoor <br />110 <br />storage would not be grandfathered in and the property would lose its non-conforming <br />111 <br />status. <br />112 <br />Chair Boerigter sought to make sure that status was very clear to the property owner <br />113 <br />and/or applicant(s). <br />114 <br />While not addressed in the staff report, Mr. Lloyd advised that it was the general nature of <br />115 <br />approvals such as this and abatement of non-conformities, that once they were removed, <br />116 <br />the use of the property went away (e.g. use for truck storage) as it was no longer <br />117 <br />protected as a non-conforming use. <br />118 <br />Chair Boerigter sought to ensure that switching from truck trailers to buses eliminated the <br />119 <br />non-conforming use and provided the City with more powers, since it’s current powers <br />120 <br />related to the non-conforming use were limited, and the Conditional Use provisions <br />121 <br />should provide the City with some benefit through a clear agreement that if this <br />122 <br />Conditional Use is approved and the property owner/applicant did not comply, they would <br />123 <br />lose their ability to use the property in the previous way as a non-conforming use. <br />124 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the staff would ensure that this was made very clear in the revised <br />125 <br />staff report when it went before the City Council with the Planning Commission’s <br />126 <br />recommendation; as well as through language of the formal resolution for review and final <br />127 <br />consideration by the City Council to convey Conditional Use approval. Mr. Lloyd noted <br />128 <br />that there were provisions in the City Code that clearly stated that if conditions on a <br />129 <br />property fail to meet code requirements, the City could begin the process to revoke a <br />130 <br />non-conforming use. <br />131 <br />Chair Boerigter sought yet again to ensure that there would be no future issues, since <br />132 <br />this property had a history of non-compliance; and he, nor the City was interested in the <br />133 <br />property reverting back to truck trailer storage and non-mown grass; and spoke in <br />134 <br />support of this Conditional Use allowing the City more control since that previous non- <br />135 <br />conforming use no longer existed, created the above-referenced issues. <br />136 <br />Mr. Lloyd assured Commissioners that this Conditional Use allowed much better controls <br />137 <br />for the City, since the property would lose its current grandfathered characteristics. <br />138 <br />Member Cunningham asked if staff had provided legal notice to Saint Anthony Village, as <br />139 <br />an adjacent property holder, allowing for their comment. <br />140 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.