2015_0928_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke clarified that there was nothing in current City Code requiring screening of this type of use with a fence. Mr. Paschke stated that he was also not sure code would require an 8' screen all around the parcel even if a requirement; especially since this is a unique use, the storage of trailers, and not actually a motor freight terminal use. At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke confirmed that this property is currently zoned and at the time of its last sale approximately 24 months ago was zoned as Community Mixed Use (CMU) and proposed for future zoning as CMU-3. Member Murphy therefore noted that, at the time of sale, the purchaser knew that this was a nonconforming use under CMU zoning designation or under proposed zoning to be considered later this evening under Project File 0026. Mr. Paschke advised that whether or not the use was conforming or legally nonconforming at the time of sale, since there may have still been a motor freight use actively using the site, that use had ceased to exist as the property had been vacant or not been used for that particular use for over one year, and in accordance with State Statute was therefore no longer a considered a legal nonconforming use that had been previously grandfathered in. Therefore, Mr. Paschke advised that the applicant had filed this IU request to address that use until the property was marketed for a higher and better use. At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke clarified that proper term for this requested use was "outdoor storage of trailers;" and confirmed that such a use was not allowed elsewhere in the City as a separate and distinct use. Other than a specific truck terminal use, Mr. Paschke advised that the City no longer allowed the outright outdoor storage of trailers and had been prohibited as a separate use during his entire tenure with the City of Roseville. Member Murphy noted then, that in consideration of the general welfare of the City, such a use was not allowed anywhere in the City today; and questioned if another type of use (e.g. pawn shop) could be potentially allowed as an IU when not actually allowed going forward, noting several other properties west on Fairview Avenue requesting similar IU approval. Member Murphy asked who monitored or enforced the storage within those trailers (e.g. hazardous waste, combustibles, etc.). Mr. Paschke responded that staff did not track it and it was a trust factor; and that the contents in these particular trailers and on this property indicated that until or unless betrayed that trust was inherent in allowing the use. Noting the location of the communication antennae on this site, which Mr. Paschke advised he would need to research further since it was on private versus public property, and whether or not the City could require its removal within a certain time frame. Mr. Paschke suggested the Commission could add an additional condition for staff to work with the applicant on removal of that antenna within the next three years, depending on whether rit fell within the commercial tower provisions of City Code without further staff review. Given the City's revised site maintenance standards for commercial occupancy, Member Murphy asked if the current state of the property met today's standards. Mr. Paschke responded that it did not do so 100%; and staff might seek to remedy them in certain areas, thus the recommended conditions for approval (e.g. dock doors and coverings or protection of trucks backing up since some seemed to be falling off the