Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 02, 2012 <br />Page 5 <br />storing of trailers as had been done before the applicant’s use and/or purchase of this p <br />190 <br />property. <br />191 <br />Member Lester sought clarification if the applicant repaired buses and semis, would they <br />192 <br />not be defined as “inoperable.” <br />193 <br />Chair Boerigter opined that not necessarily since this Conditional Use related only to <br />194 <br />outdoor storage and they have a building that could house inoperable vehicles. <br />195 <br />Mr. Paschke concurred, as long as the facility use was in compliance with City Code, with <br />196 <br />maintenance for fleet and worker’s vehicles allowed, since the Code didn’t preclude that, <br />197 <br />and actually supported it. However, Mr. Paschke clarified that Code defined what outdoor <br />198 <br />storage allowed and where it was located; what could and couldn’t be stored out side; <br />199 <br />and other parameters defining that use. Mr. Paschke advised that the use would be <br />200 <br />permitted and monitored as with any other use in Roseville; with staff monitoring <br />201 <br />situations to garner compliance. Mr. Paschke advised that a Conditional Use provided a <br />202 <br />higher level of authority for the City to revoke them if not kept in compliance. <br />203 <br />For extra clarification, Mr. Lloyd noted the difference in a bus in the yard that didn’t start <br />204 <br />and needed to be moved into the garage since it was temporarily not operational, but was <br />205 <br />intended to be brought back into service versus letting the grass grow around it and <br />206 <br />remaining inoperable, or abandoned or scavenged for parts. <br />207 <br />Member Cunningham questioned if there were time guidelines for how long inoperable <br />208 <br />vehicles could be kept on site. <br />209 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that there was nothing currently in City Code to draw a clear <br />210 <br />distinction; and depending on circumstances, it was hard to define a rationale timeline. <br />211 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the Planning Commission could provide a recommended condition <br />212 <br />as part of their approval, but noted that he would be hard pressed to offer any guidance <br />213 <br />for such a timeframe. <br />214 <br />Mr. Paschke advised, from a staff perspective, that it was key for them to understand the <br />215 <br />issue and determine why a vehicle was sitting out for any length of time, and to work with <br />216 <br />the property owner on compliance. Mr. Paschke advised that it was typical for adjacent <br />217 <br />property owners to serve as staff’s eyes for them, in addition to staff observations. From <br />218 <br />a personal perspective, Mr. Paschke opined that it was not unreasonable for a vehicle to <br />219 <br />be outside for a week or so, especially if parts were not immediately available. <br />220 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Dufresne advised that they would typically <br />221 <br />work on the trucks in the garage. <br />222 <br />Public Comment <br />223 <br />As a Bench Handout, attached hereto and made a part hereto, Mr. Lloyd provided <br />224 <br />correspondence with Ms. Terry Gilberstadt, Corporate Secretary and Manager of Horton <br />225 <br />Transportation, Horton Holding, Inc., 2565 Walnut Street, Roseville, MN, as adjacent <br />226 <br />property owner and specific to this requested use. <br />227 <br />Ms. Terry Gilberstadt, Corporate Secretary and Manager, Horton Transportation, <br />228 <br />2565 Walnut Street (adjacent to subject site) <br />229 <br />Ms. Gilberstadt referenced the correspondence as noted; and provided photos to display <br />230 <br />of the current property situation with weeds, inappropriate fencing, and other debris on <br />231 <br />the subject property. Ms. Gilberstadt noted that their property, Horton Holding, served as <br />232 <br />their corporate headquarters, serving national and international visitors, and that they <br />233 <br />kept their property maintained and aesthetically presentable accordingly. Ms. Gilberstadt <br />234 <br />expressed her appreciation of the new owner’s intent to improve the property; however, <br />235 <br />she expressed concern that current conditions may continue unless the Conditional Use <br />236 <br />could effectively address the majority of their concerns. At a minimum, Ms. Gilberstadt <br />237 <br />requested that the new owner mow the weeds; and if using the back portion of the <br />238 <br />parking lot, tar it to keep dust blowing into their office. Ms. Gilberstadt noted how <br />239 <br /> <br />