2012-08-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 1, 2012 Page 4 Mr. Christenson advised that they store approximately eighty (80) vehicles for the Police 148 Departments in the Cities of Roseville and Maplewood; and to-date the largest vehicle was a van. 149 Mr. Christenson stated that a six foot (6’) fence would cover ninety percent (90%) of the vehicles 150 stored; even though there have been several parcel vans seized in the past. However, if those 151 type of vehicles are seized and stored, Mr. Christenson advised that they could be stored at the 152 rear of the property and not visible off the lot. Mr. Christianson noted that there were currently 153 semi trailers parked on the corners in that area anyway; and their intent was to improve the 154 property. 155 Mr. Christenson noted that the City’s Police Department could confirm that the building on this 156 property has been broken into three (3) times, with wiring and copper stolen. Mr. Christenson 157 noted that the Roseville Police Department had stepped up monitoring that area and was doing a 158 great job now; and opined that the Department was appreciative of this storage compared to 159 former storage under the City’s water tower. 160 Mr. Christenson advised that the only thing visible to the public would be antique motor cycles 161 and classic cars on display in the inside of the building. Mr. Christenson noted that they had been 162 in business in Roseville since 1991 and wanted to remain invested in the community; expressing 163 pleasure in being able to work with both the cities of Maplewood and Roseville. 164 At the request of Member Boguszewski regarding the procedure if the Commission chose to 165 review staff’s recommended condition, Mr. Lloyd advised that their motion could simply include 166 that revision and direct staff accordingly. 167 At the request of Member Strohmeier, Mr. Lloyd responded to staff’s rationale in preferring an 168 eight foot (8’) versus a six foot (6’) high fence was based only on aesthetics. However, if the 169 applicant is stating that they will store any larger items in the rear, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff 170 would be more amenable to the shorter height fence. Mr. Lloyd opined that there was no reason 171 for not allowing the deviation under these circumstances; however, since any and all fences are 172 offensive and no one is interested in installing an opaque fence as prescribed by City Code, any 173 deviation by the Commission to height and opacity issues may open the door for future deviations 174 to reduce those requirements as well. Mr. Lloyd noted that, since this is an Interim Use and was 175 temporary any complaints from future applicants could be addressed accordingly, diminishing the 176 risk for setting a precedent. 177 Member Cunningham questioned if a shorter height fence could serve to increase the crime rate 178 by allowing access by climbing over the fence to access the impound lot. 179 Mr. Christenson recognized that as a valid question; noting that current vehicles were stored 180 indoor, but it was becoming very cost-prohibitive. Mr. Christenson stated that he had advised both 181 cities that video cameras would be installed on site; but opined that if someone wanted to climb 182 over the fence they could do so. Mr. Christenson opined that a six foot (6’) fence was actually 183 harder to drive through than an eight foot (8’) fence; and unauthorized access was also easier 184 when the fencing was opaque. Mr. Christenson opined that, with the video cameras and lighting, 185 it would serve to discourage any access to the lot, but would probably not totally eliminate it. Mr. 186 Christenson further opined that most break ins were by those whose vehicles had been seized; 187 and if they wanted access, they could simply cut the fence. 188 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Lloyd advised that during interdepartmental staff 189 meetings, the Police Department had expressed no concerns with this application. 190 Mr. Christenson noted that those vehicles stored outside, approximately ninety percent (90%) of 191 those seized were the less expensive vehicles, usually valued at $1,000 or below; and more 192 expensive vehicles would continue to be stored indoors. Mr. Christenson advised that many of 193 those less expensive vehicles were already smashed up and provided no rationale for breaking 194 in. 195 At the request of Member Lester regarding if in the future it was determined that an eight foot (8’) 196 fence would be better and required of a renewed Interim Use application, Mr. Lloyd advised that 197 the Code could be applied at the point of any new approval request. However, Mr. Lloyd 198 questioned if it would be appropriate if there had been no major issues with the Interim Use 199