2015_0928_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B a direct attempt to upgrade the aesthetics. Chair Boguszewski opined that he, and probably numerous other Roseville residents, would concur with the comments expressed by Ms. Erickson, but also shared her appreciation for all Roseville Properties had done in the community to-date. However, Chair Boguszewski opined that this use was not the best fit on this site, and therefore, he was not leaning toward recommending its approval at this point. Member Bull advised that he had attended and spoken to Mr. Commers and his father at their open house for this project; and recognized their other work currently being finished on other acquisitions before addressing this site, and trying to make it income-producing until it could be marketed for a better and higher use. Member Bull noted that the proposed use under the IU request had been historically compatible with this property, and given the proposed 3 year term and commitment by the owner to raze the building seemed to move forward with a better use of the site. Member Bull noted that by razing the building and restoring the surface area within that three year timeframe would allow Roseville Properties to recoup some of their costs. However, if the property owner found a viable tenant within 6-12 months, he felt confident they would accelerate plans accordingly. Member Bull opined that the number of conditions recommended by staff seemed sufficient, without getting even more excessive with additional conditions, including the requirement to park trailers back to back. Member Murphy clarified that this requirement for parking was a state requirement for a 5' separation for security purposes when trailers were parked parallel to each other. Member Bull stated he would support the IU request with a few wording changes. Member Stellmach stated that he was leaning toward supporting the 3-year IU request, opining that safety issues would improve with the staff-recommended conditions to the IU, and in consideration of the property owners' apparent interest in the goal of transitioning the property sooner than later, and which he would then support them in those efforts. Member Cunningham admitted she struggled in approving a 3 year IU when so much remained up in the air with this area, and the Twin Lakes parkway, opining that it may prove discouraging for residents to see this unsightly storage in an area focused on redevelopment. While appreciating the 70' front yard setback condition, Member Cunningham stated that she could not support a 3 year IU, but would be more amenable to a 1 or 2 year IU. Chair Boguszewski noted that the Commission could choose to amend the IU term at their discretion. Based on the plans outlined by Mr. Commers, Member Cunningham suggested that a 2 year IU term seemed reasonable based on current market conditions, while still allowing them to return to the Planning Commission for an extension of the IU if market conditions dictated it. Chair Boguszewski stated that he was not convinced that a fence or visual barrier screening of the site wouldn't also improve the application from his perspective. Member Cunningham noted that it may just be the uniqueness of this site since the next IU request proposed fencing. Mr. Paschke responded that there was a difference in the IU requests based on their specific use, with the other request consisting of a contractor yard that functioned much differently than this and requiring screening at a lower level than could be achieved with