2016-03-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, March 2, 2016 Page 18 continued to manage their business and their capital requirements capped off with the 862 business plan they had in line and Small Business Administration (SBA) financing due to 863 that delay. Ms. Vogel advised that their family had been moving at city staff’s direction, 864 thinking they were all on the same page. In retrospect, Ms. Vogel opined that the problem 865 came in the beginning in defining the location of the north property line that they 866 considered as a buffer, but had turned into a positional issue. 867 Mr. Crain 868 Having served for a few years as a former Planning Commission for the City of West St. 869 Paul, Mr. Crain noted that he could see both perspectives, and while seeking to address 870 other concerns tonight as well, he could only speak from his experience when reviewing 871 CU applications on that Planning Commission. Mr. Crain opined that utmost in that 872 decision-making, was to determine if conditions applied were appropriate to address the 873 problem trying to be resolved and without creating too much of a burden on the property 874 owner and reaching a balance for regulating a use and facilitating that use. As observed 875 at previous meetings and public hearings, Mr. Crain noted that it was unfortunate that 876 tensions were running high. 877 Before moving into the conditions and options outlined by staff, Mr. Crain advised he 878 wanted to address why he was here representing the Vogels. Mr. Crain stated that he 879 worked with family-owned businesses, such as the Vogels, and addressing succession 880 planning and long-term viability of that firm. Mr. Crain advised that the Vogels were one 881 of those long-term family owned businesses that intended to be here for the long haul 882 and noted that the decisions made by the Commission will affect future generations, and 883 therefore, asked that they be mindful in setting conditions for approval. 884 In how to address controlling this use and any similar business, Mr. Crain opined that it 885 would be handled through defining “accessory” versus “primary” use. Mr. Crain clarified 886 that the Vogels had no intention or any desire to be internally based and not perform their 887 work at their various job sites. 888 Specific to the termination of the IU versus operating under a CU, Mr. Crain noted that 889 the IU terminates by approval of the CU, and as stated in Resolution No. 11160 adopted 890 by the Roseville City Council on June 23, 2014, in the second condition “b” on page 2 891 related to expiration or extension of the IU, of by virtue of a more permanent approval 892 (e.g. zoning change or conditional use), as displayed by Mr. Paschke at this time. 893 In addressing Condition options 1.A, B or C, Mr. Crain advised that berming had already 894 been installed, and in discussion with staff, it was determined that the berming installed 895 under the IU was sufficient for the requirements of the CU as well. 896 As it relates to that condition, Mr. Paschke clarified that assuming no screened fence is 897 installed along the north property line, he believed some minor additional screening was 898 needed to augment headlight screening and in place of installing a fence for the purpose 899 of screening the parking lot. 900 With confirmation by Mr. Paschke, Mr. Crain restated that his understanding was that the 901 current berming status would be sufficient if a fence was installed, but it not additional 902 berming would be required. 903 Regarding the location of the fence itself, Mr. Crain clarified that the fact was the fence 904 would not be on that red line as indicated as the property line on the displayed map. 905 Given the easements in place in that area and also abutting the fencing, trees, etc. Mr. 906 Crain advised that the Vogels cant or wont install the fence on that line. Mr. Crain advised 907 this decision had been arrived at as the situation had been further examined as to 908 whether they could reasonably do so and make it work at an affordable cost. 909 Ms. Vogel advised that, as referenced at a previous public hearing before the City 910 Council, it came down to making a determination as to whether or not CenturyLink would 911 let the fence be installed on the easement. Ms. Vogel advised that CenturyLink’s latest 912 correspondence stated said that footings had to be at least 2’ away from their equipment, 913