2013_07_10_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 10, 2013 Page 12 so it can be considered viable by getting around state law. Member Daire further opined that this 564 would be an appealing option for a developer or property owner if one consequence of the 565 proposed permit process allowed extension of the time period to find a tenant and get around the 566 one (1) year timeframe for nonconforming uses. If that was the case, Member Daire advised that 567 he wasn’t sure if this didn’t create legal questions of a different nature. 568 On an unrelated note, Member Daire opined that if properties along the south side of County 569 Road C were zoned for HDR next to a rail line, he would seriously question that designation. 570 Mr. Lloyd clarified that the location referenced by Member Daire, and that rail corridor, had for 571 some time (off and on) been considered a likely location for a transit line or connection. 572 Member Daire recognized that distinction if that was the situation, referencing his previous work 573 during his planning career on the Light Rail Transit system, and opined that this would then be a 574 prime location for HDR. 575 If the goal was to encourage turnover of a property to its new use, Chair Gisselquist questioned if 576 the proposed nonconforming use permit would only serve to prolong that turnover and allow the 577 owner to limp along with that permit and any extensions. Chair Gisselquist questioned at what 578 point the City lost the incentive to get them to turn the land over for the newly desired zoning 579 classification and use. 580 Mr. Lloyd recognized that as a fair point; noting that it was a matter of finding a balance between 581 achieving redevelopment goals for an area, while not making a former industrial property an 582 anchor around a property owner’s neck with him still required to pay taxes, but not able to find a 583 tenant. Mr. Lloyd clarified that an important distinction would be to not allow any expansion of the 584 facilities in question, while the tenant spaces could be refinished as necessary but not expanded 585 to limit any investment in a property that should be changing in the near future. 586 When the Comprehensive Plan was being drawn up envisioning these major changes, Member 587 Murphy questioned if any thought had been given to a transition plan from one use to another 588 extremely different one and within a certain time period. Member Murphy opined that the City 589 should be straightforward and erect a firm goal line and incent property owners to begin that 590 transition. 591 Mr. Lloyd responded that some sort of timeframe, with an approved, nonconforming use permit, 592 could be appropriate, possibly by using the existing Interim Use Permit process and its related 593 timeframe. Mr. Lloyd noted that efforts of a property owner being granted approval for an Interim 594 Use Permit were quite high; and questioned if this should this be a lower effort or if it was 595 inappropriate to carry on. 596 Member Murphy suggested, as part of a nonconforming use permit, that the property owner be 597 asked to provide a history or transition plan. 598 Mr. Lloyd responded that there was nothing similar, from a policy standpoint, for Interim approvals 599 at this time. 600 In the spirit of this request by staff for direction-setting, Member Boguszewski concurred with 601 Member Murphy that there should be a time limit or set number of times a property owner could 602 request such a “sequential re-grandfathering permit.” Member Boguszewski concurred with Chair 603 Gisselquist that presumptively the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code reflected the will of 604 Roseville citizens in general, indicating that a prior permitted use no longer served the best 605 interests of the community. 606 From another perspective, Member Boguszewski recognized Member Daire’s comments and a 607 property owner unable to lease a property and therefore needing it to revert to its previous use. In 608 his initial review of this request, Member Boguszewski advised that he was surprisingly and 609 unexpectedly pro-owner. However, Member Boguszewski cautioned that there needed to be a 610 clear awareness of uses flying counter to the overall intent of the current Comprehensive Plan, 611 and clearly eliminate those more intense uses from the residential heart of Roseville. 612 Mr. Lloyd recognized that as a fair point as well; since staff had not yet discussed specific 613 geography; opining that there may be places or examples where something that was an easier 614