2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Public Comment Andy Broggert, 1694 Millwood Mr. Broggert suggested adding another “or” statement on line 68 rather than making it seem mutually exclusive; and concurred with the comments of Member Boguszewski. Mr. Broggert supported replacement language for Item 2 (line 69) to read: “Upon another expiration date not to exceed the five year limit identified in Item 1.” Mr. Broggert opined that he didn’t want an open-ended term for Interim Uses, and that some time period needed to be established, but not open-ended. Mr. Broggert spoke in support of the event clause in line 71; however, he opined that it still needed a date associated with it, so the event couldn’t happen after the five years on or before an event that would terminate the Interim Use. Mr. Broggert asked for additional language, referencing City Council notes regarding periodic reviews, and that those reviews be included to make sure the use remained as intended, and if not, the Interim Use could expire, giving authority for terminating the use. Mr. Broggert noted that the City had a long-term comprehensive plan, and if the City adopted an open-ended Interim Use clause, it further deferred accomplishing that long- term plan and goals, especially if the term is open-ended at twenty years or more, requiring waiting another ten years after that to accomplish those long-term goals. While Interim Uses are an important tool, Mr. Broggert opined that they needed some restraints. Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Grefenberg clarified that he was appearing as a Roseville resident and also as a coordinator of SWARN. While understanding and appreciating the comments of Chair Gisselquist, Mr. Grefenberg opined that he did not approve of Interim Uses for specific issues, but in response to Member Daire, when this Interim Use for Vogel Sheetmetal was approved in June by this body, no one was aware that the bank financing sought by Vogel would require a twenty year term, further opining that that was the main reason this request is before the body, with the bank dictating what the City needed to do to follow their financial arrangements. Being part of a neighborhood association, Mr. Grefenberg questioned why the City was attempting to solve the Vogel issue by applying such an amendment throughout the City that only serves to invite open-endedness and discredits the intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning. Mr. Grefenberg questioned what the zoning code meant if an Interim Use was allowed for up to twenty years; and expressed his resentment in the bank trying to tell the City what to do with its land use policy and applying it city-wide. Mr. Grefenberg noted that the City wasn’t’ concerned with financing his home, and as a member of the community outside the immediate neighborhood, he could not envision how the City thought it was going to solve a single problem by making a change city-wide allowing Interim Uses for twenty years or longer. Mr. Grefenberg opined that there were limits needed. Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive Ms. Erickson spoke in support of retaining the five year maximum time limit for Interim Uses. As a long-term resident of Roseville, twenty-nine of them at this location adjacent to Vogel Sheetmetal, Ms. Erickson opined that a limited term was her only protection by the City, as the City used the Interim Use to determine if such a nonconforming use fit with the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Erickson noted that residents couldn’t move their homes if this business use didn’t work for them; and noted the length of a twenty-year use. Ms. Erickson stated that the residential property owners were attempting to be a good neighbor, but there were many unknowns with the Vogel property and use, and the Interim Use for a limit of five years provided the residential property owners some level