My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf_03111
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
Old Numbering System (pre-2007)
>
PF3000 - PF3801
>
3100
>
pf_03111
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/14/2011 10:32:28 AM
Creation date
12/8/2004 3:47:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
3111
Planning Files - Type
Interim Use Permit
Address
2205 County Road C2 W
Project Name
Boaters Outlet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />June 4, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Wiski asked if people came to the site to look at the trucks. <br />Nelson replied that they did not. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked Nelson whether he was satisfied with the surface of <br />the facility, and he also pointed out that Nelson's building <br />looked better than any of the others on the site. Nelson stated <br />that the surface works quite well as far as he is concerned. <br /> <br />Berry asked what has been repainted in the area. Nelson replied <br />that the inside was painted, and a significant amount of plywood <br />was replaced, and the outside has been completed excluding the <br />doors. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked whether only Nelson's part of the facility is <br />being painted. Nelson replied that yes, his portion of the leased <br />property has been painted, but the Quonset huts have not been <br />painted. <br /> <br />Dahlgren asked Mr. Nelson if he knows why Trapp has not completed <br />what he said he would complete. He also asked as to whether <br />Trapp is finally going to clean up the area and meet the previous <br />conditions as set forth by the City Council relating to previous <br />approvals for this site's development. Nelson replied that he <br />wasn't familiar with the requirements that Trapp was supposed to <br />complete, except he knows the building has been painted. <br /> <br />Wiski asked Mr. Dahlgren what specifically has to be done to meet <br />the requirements of previous conditions on the parcel. Dahlgren <br />stated that the area still has to be painted, there is poor <br />maintenance in the area, curbing has not been completed, the <br />parking areas are not properly surfaced, and the whole facility <br />exhibits improper maintenance. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked whether all of these conditions are as yet <br />unaddressed. Dahlgren replied that yes, these conditions are the <br />ones that Trapp has not properly addressed. DeBenedet asked <br />whether a bond could be required to enforce compliance with <br />previous conditions. Demos pointed out that there has not been <br />new construction on this site for bonding purposes. She also <br />pointed out that this site, on numerous occasions, has been <br />considered for closing. <br /> <br />Wiski stated his concern that he thought Trapp should meet <br />previous conditions before additional Special Uses are approved. <br /> <br />Maschka asked whether the Council is the mechanism that takes the <br />action to put Mr. Trapp out of business. Demos replied yes, it is <br />a Council action; however, Trapp always claims that he will <br />address the problems in the area. <br /> <br />Johnson asked whether the Code Enforcement Division could close <br />Mr. Trapp. Demos replied that in order to close a business, it <br />would be best if it would be a specific Council action. She also <br />reiterated that Mr. Trapp, based on previous discussions with the <br />Council, knows fully well what he is required to do on the site. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.