Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 <br /> <br />Page 17 <br />northern edge of the property being defined much more clearly, but this applicant <br />811 <br />proposal seeks to locate it anywhere within that green area as shown on the map and <br />812 <br />between the Vogel parcel and residential properties to the north. <br />813 <br />Specific to Condition option 1.A and previous comments at Planning Commission <br />814 <br />meetings, Member Cunningham stated that it was her understanding that the <br />815 <br />recommendation of the City Council was that they not do that. Member Cunningham <br />816 <br />noted that she recalled the rationale being that If the neighbors installed their fences and <br />817 <br />the Vogels installed their fence, with a small open area in between, it would create a <br />818 <br />safety risk in the neighborhood. <br />819 <br />Mr. Paschke confirmed that, at that time, neither staff or the Commission recommended <br />820 <br />installation of a fence, whether that needed to be on the property line or replace the <br />821 <br />existing one to avoid that gap. Mr. Paschke clarified that staff didn’t recommend approval <br />822 <br />of the fence, and staff’s requirement was consistent with current city code and would <br />823 <br />have been implemented accordingly. <br />824 <br />If the Commission approved Condition 1.A.a, and both residential property owners on the <br />825 <br />north and the Vogels installed fences, Member Cunningham asked if that represented a <br />826 <br />safety concern from staff’s perspective. <br />827 <br />Mr. Paschke responded that he wasn’t sure if the distance indicated represented 3’ to 4’ <br />828 <br />and something that would need to be discussed with the Roseville Police Department <br />829 <br />and fleshed out to find a reasonable distance and to address safety concerns with fence <br />830 <br />design and separation. Mr. Paschke recognized some of those safety issues that could <br />831 <br />come up, including loitering and other nefarious activities. <br />832 <br />Applicant Representatives <br />833 <br />Bonnie Vogel, Owner and CEO AND Dave Vogel, Owner of Vogel Mechanical <br />834 <br />Zachary J. Crain, Roseville Resident and Attorney for the Vogels, with Nilan <br />835 <br />Johnson, Lewis, PA (120 S Sixth Street, Suite 400, Minneapolis, MN 55402) <br />836 <br />Ms. Vogel <br /> clarified that the heart of their business was “construction,” with their work <br />837 <br />done off-site (e.g. Mall of America, Minnesota State Capitol, St. Paul Regional Water <br />838 <br />Services, etc.) with equipment and bulk of the materials used going directly from their <br />839 <br />vendors to the job site. Ms. Vogel advised that less than 5% of their business involved <br />840 <br />production of processing, but clarified that they sometimes did specialty revamping of <br />841 <br />duct work as may be required for a particular job. <br />842 <br />Ms. Vogel noted that theirs was a first generation entrepreneurial business. Ms. Vogel <br />843 <br />provided a brief history of their family’s excitement in coming across this site in Roseville, <br />844 <br />looking very depressed and having many issues to address for rehabilitating the property <br />845 <br />and building. Because of the small family-owned nature of their business, Ms. Vogel <br />846 <br />stated that they were very interested in restoring the building and site and becoming part <br />847 <br />of the community of Roseville. Being in the construction business, Ms. Vogel noted that <br />848 <br />they were in a good position to make those building and site repairs and were <br />849 <br />encouraged to become a Roseville employer and the public work force and human <br />850 <br />capital side by providing good paying jobs from that location. For that and many other <br />851 <br />business reasons, Ms. Vogel stated that locating in Roseville made sense to their firm <br />852 <br />and they were excited about this particular location. <br />853 <br />Ms. Vogel noted that, when she had appeared before the Planning Commission <br />854 <br />previously she had agreed to work with the residential neighbors about their concerns. <br />855 <br />However, Ms. Vogel admitted that she never dreamed the situation would come out as it <br />856 <br />had, and from their firm’s and family’s perspective, apologized for any disrespect the <br />857 <br />neighbors had felt. However, Ms. Vogel stated that she felt their firm’s reputation had also <br />858 <br />been damaged as well. <br />859 <br />When first applying for the IU, Ms. Vogel stated that they anticipated rezoning would <br />860 <br />happen that same summer; but instead that had been significantly delayed, while they <br />861 <br /> <br />