2015-09-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 22 Member Bull suggested striking Condition 1.f since Condition 3 addressed it sufficiently. 1070 Member Cunningham noted the previous IU request had not wanted to ask the property 1071 owner to make the financial commitment for a fence, while this one did, and questioned 1072 the differences that would make installation on this site a requirement. 1073 Mr. Paschke noted the differences in requiring a fence on the portion of this property 1074 used solely for contractor yard components to be consistent with that type of use versus 1075 that of a motor freight terminal. While still requiring an investment, Mr. Paschke noted 1076 that the contractor items to be screened were considered more unsightly and needed to 1077 be addressed on this site versus trailer storage. 1078 Member Cunningham questioned if the investment for fencing didn’t encourage this use 1079 to stick around allowing the property owner to recoup their investment. 1080 Mr. Bilotta advised from the market side, when looking at this site versus that on Fairview 1081 Avenue proposed for development within the next year, while sometimes developments 1082 may or may not occur, if this particular site drug on for a longer period of time, it would 1083 not impact activities on adjacent parcels as it would negatively impact the potential 1084 development possibilities along Fairview Avenue with its more central location in the 1085 community rather than this one on the west side of I-35W. 1086 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke displayed the intended location of the 1087 fence specific to contractor storage, showing a much smaller area versus the entire lot. 1088 Member Murphy stated his willingness to support a motion to approve this IU as long as 1089 Condition 1.f remained to clarify where trailers can be stored versus where construction 1090 equipment could be stored on the corner. 1091 Member Bull clarified, as confirmed by Mr. Paschke, that Condition 1 applied only to the 1092 trailer storage area, with nothing prohibiting trailer storage where the contractor yard is 1093 currently located. 1094 Mr. Paschke noted the applicant was not seeking that, and the fact remained that all 1095 equipment related to the contractor yard needed to be on an all-weather surface and 1096 requiring an entirely different type of storage. Mr. Paschke clarified that the other 1097 conditions dealt with other uses (e.g. trailer storage on the west side of the parcel). 1098 MOTION 1099 Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Murphy to recommend to the City 1100 Council approval of the INTERIM USE allowing outdoor storage of semi-truck 1101 trailers, contractor yard, and semi-truck sales and leasing at 2211 and 2217 County 1102 Road C-2; based on the comments, findings, and conditions contained the project 1103 report dated September 2, 2015. 1104  Condition 8 corrected the term of the IU from September 1 to September 30 for 1105 its expiration. 1106 Ayes: 5 1107 Nays: 0 1108 Motion carried. 1109 Staff noted that this case is tentatively scheduled to come before the City Council at their 1110 September 21, 2015 meeting. 1111 f. PROJECT FILE 0026 1112 Request by City of Roseville for approval of amendments to the 2030 1113 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code pertaining to various properties within the 1114 Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area 1115 Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Project File 0026 at 9:32 p.m. 1116 Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd briefly reviewed the request for amendment of the 2030 1117 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area as 1118