2015_0928_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment B Regarding the timeframe, Member Bull noted that if a 2 year IU term was provided, the property owner would need to make a decision within eighteen months whether or not to extend the IU or the City Council would need to start making plans for vacating it. Therefore, Member Bull suggested a 3 year IU seemed more appropriate for decision- making for all parties. Member Cunningham asked Mr. Commers if a 2 year IU term was worth their time. Mr. Commers responded that staff had agreed to a 3 year maximum term and would not budge on a longer term. Therefore, Mr. Commers noted that it only provided more incentive for them to get this site redeveloped as soon as possible, since it isn't a profitable site in its current use or condition, and not even covering taxes with current revenues under current zoning restrictions. Mr. Commers reiterated the intent of Roseville Properties in even pursuing this IU was an attempt to offset expenses and get out of that situation as soon as possible, allowing a certain amount of time to come up with ideas and start that process. Mr. Commers advised that a 3 year IU term would be preferable, but even if a 2 or 2.5 year term, they would take what they could get, since they were at the mercy of the Commission and City Council, but reiterated that Roseville Properties was in it for the long haul. Chair Boguszewski noted that it still didn't preclude Roseville Properties from coming back for an extension if things didn't work out, with Mr. Commers responding that he remained optimistic that the next great deal was forthcoming. Chair Boguszewski stated that this additional discussion had not served to move him from his previous position, opining that something determined to be an undesirable use on this 40,000 square foot property continued to be undesirable even if intended for the short term until something better could be found. Considering the long-term plan for this area and from a process perspective, Chair Boguszewski stated that he was not amenable to making a motion to support this IU request. Before considering revising the proposed conditions for approval of this IU, Member Murphy suggested another solution seeking a proposal everyone could support, suggesting a motion to DENY approval of the IU rather than attempting to approve it with yet more conditions to make it more palatable. Before taking that step, Member Cunningham sought consensus on the potential of changing the term, reiterating her hesitancy in allow this IU on this parcel and in agreement with Chair Boguszewski. However, Member Cunningham admitted she would be much more amenable with a 2 year IU term to assure neighbors that there was a light at the end of the tunnel rather than voting to DENY the IU request entirely. Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Bull to recommend to the City Council approval of the INTERIM USE allowing outdoor storage of semi-truck trailers at 2720 Fairview Avenue; based on the comments, findings, and conditions contained the project report dated September 2, 2015; amended as follows: • Condition 1.d is amended to read: "Trailers parked/stored in the south lot area shall be parked either next to the building or sough of the building (, OR] (a�el] must be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the property line with a minimum of 30 feet between trailer and building for a clear drive lane to the rear and around the building." • Condition 2 amended to read: ".., and the site shall be maintained through the duration of this IU." • Condition 4 amended to read: "This approval shall expire at 11:59 p.m. on September 30, �,28��] �2017], reducing the proposed approval term of this IU from 3 years to 2 years; and expiring on September 30, 2017."