Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 <br />Page 16 <br />followed by legal recourse. Mr. Paschke advised that during his tenure, he had never had <br />761 <br />such a situation occur due to noncompliance. <br />762 <br />Applicant Representatives <br />763 <br />Chad Commers, Vice President, Roseville Properties Management Co. (RPMC) <br />764 <br />For those unfamiliar with Roseville Properties, Mr. Commers provided a brief history of <br />765 <br />their firm, with their acquisition portfolio including properties in Roseville since 1978. Over <br />766 <br />that time, Mr. Commers noted the decades-long process of improving and reinvesting in <br />767 <br />the community through upgrades of those properties, advising that their company was <br />768 <br />here for the long-term. <br />769 <br />Mr. Commers advised that this particular property was acquired over a decade ago and <br />770 <br />had been used as a motor freight terminal until that tenant left to acquire a larger facility, <br />771 <br />at which time Roseville Properties continued to lease the property for a variety of uses. <br />772 <br />Mr. Commers admitted it had been his oversight that caused the current situation in <br />773 <br />losing the grandfathered or legal nonconforming use, thus the request currently before <br />774 <br />the Commission. <br />775 <br />Mr. Commers advised that this site was not achieving its maximum potential for their firm <br />776 <br />or for the City for the long0term, and therefore the IU request was simply to bring in some <br />777 <br />cash flow while their firm finished improvements and renovations to two of their other <br />778 <br />properties (Play It Again Sports and Petco), at which time they intended to begin <br />779 <br />marketing this parcel and the property immediately adjacent for potential renovation in <br />780 <br />the spring and summer of 2016. Depending on market conditions, Mr. Commers advised <br />781 <br />that the company’s intent was to get something going within the next 2-3 years. Mr. <br />782 <br />Commers verified that his firm’s intent was to raze the building if the IU is granted; and <br />783 <br />continue to use the property for trailer storage, and simply backfill that former building <br />784 <br />footprint once raised for additional trailer storage during the term of the IU. <br />785 <br />According to the attachments to the staff report, Member Cunningham noted that it <br />786 <br />appeared approximately 100 trailers were currently being stored on the property, and <br />787 <br />questioned how many were anticipated if and when the building was razed. <br />788 <br />Mr. Commers responded that, once the building was razed, it would depend on the <br />789 <br />amount of the site required for setbacks and drive lanes as conditioned by staff, and <br />790 <br />currently being revised and drawn up by the architect for Roseville Properties. <br />791 <br />With Member Cunningham noted that the lot appeared to be packed in tight on the site <br />792 <br />now, Mr. Commers admitted the lot was fairly full, but if the IU is approved, there will <br />793 <br />probably be room for fewer trailers, depending on the results once the actual schematics <br />794 <br />are finalized. <br />795 <br />Chair Boguszewski noted that razing the building should accommodate some of the room <br />796 <br />lost through setback and drive lane requirements. <br />797 <br />At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Commers addressed the contents of trailers <br />798 <br />currently on the lot advising that they were excess storage for Goodwill Industries, and <br />799 <br />therefore should be no reason for any concern about hazardous substances. <br />800 <br />However, Member Murphy clarified that the Fire Marshal may have valid concerns with <br />801 <br />combustibles stored in the trailers on the subject property and potential fire issues with <br />802 <br />adjacent buildings with arson potentials of those combustible materials. <br />803 <br />Mr. Commers responded that no igniter was evident within a significant distance with the <br />804 <br />subject property surrounded by vacant parcels. <br />805 <br />Public Comment <br />806 <br />Carole Erickson, 1996 Langton Lake Drive – Applewood Point <br />807 <br />Ms. Erickson stated that she had been a big supporter of Roseville Properties for years, <br />808 <br />but was concerned in granting this use given the substantial number of years the City of <br />809 <br />Roseville had been trying to shed the image in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area from <br />810 <br /> <br />