2014_1201_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B lapsed for two years, without City staff being aware of it, which from her perspective meant that they did not have an effective monitoring process in place to ensure Interim Uses were kept current, and if that was the case, how could they be expected to provide periodic check backs. In the Interim Use provided to Minnesota Irrigation in 2010, the staff report provided statements from Community Development Director Trudgeon referring that Interim Uses essentially set up a contentious relationship between residents and businesses; and staff admitted at that time that there was insufficient code enforcement officers available to address or correct violations, and therefore, staff relied on complaints to monitor those situations. Ms. McCormack opined that a complaint driven code enforcement program created a weakness in that enforcement, and beyond putting a company out of business, and putting the burden on property owners, situations often resulted in long-standing renewable Interim Uses. Ms. McCormack noted that Interim Uses essentially put parcels outside the City’s building code, when those neighbors were relying on the City to make sure businesses were compatible to protect neighbors. Specific to the requirements, Ms. McCormack opined that additional planning documents were necessary, and in this case, one finding was that there should be no additional cost to the public if required to take a property back after a nonconforming use. However, Ms. McCormack opined that often environmental contamination had occurred requiring mediation, which was at taxpayer expense. Ms. McCormack advised that she reviewed peer cities, those used in the City’s compensation plan review done in 2013, comparing the cities of Arden Hills, New Brighton, St. Paul and Minneapolis among others, and found that those communities all had terms of three to five years for their Interim Use, and while admittedly State Statute has no stated timeframe, those not having a timeframe were significantly more stringent in their planning requirements requiring more detailed plans to allow the city to accurately assess long-term use of those sites. Ms. McCormack opined that the Cites of Arden Hills and Minnetonka struck her as good examples to review if the City of Roseville was serious about this proposed amendment. While everyone had made their comments that this amendment is not in response to the Vogel situation, Ms. McCormack respectfully disagreed with that position, noting that there weren’t a lot of people seeking Interim Uses and requiring this amount of flexibility other than Vogel; and therefore she could see no urgency in making this amendment. Ms. McCormack referenced the Ramsey County mapping tool she had used to identify the 431 residential parcels in their neighborhood and collective amount of property taxes they paid, which proved that as a group they contributed significantly to the financial well-being of the community as well as the business community. Ms. McCormack opined that this would be a poor policy to make this open-ended given the current issue unless the intent was to review the planning process to ensure residents are guaranteed periodic inspections and adequate enforcement. Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 9:15 p.m. Discussion Chair Gisselquist stated that he was inclined not to act and leave the language as is, since he considered this event-driven, and preferred to shy away from changing the zoning code for specific events. Member Boguszewski opined that he liked the five year term, and while perhaps amenable to a little more time, he considered any longer term to create the need to think about rezoning a parcel.