2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 19 sit than current; and opined that the door had therefore officially been closed on that 917 legal, nonconforming use and it would set a bad precedent to reopen that door. 918 Recognizing other enforcement actions going on throughout the City through the 919 Neighborhood and Business Enhancement Programs (NEP and BEP), Member Murphy 920 noted this use was no longer allowed anywhere within the City today under any CMU 921 subcategory, making it difficult to consider approval at his location on Fairview Avenue. 922 Chair Boguszewski asked Mr. Commers the average length of time any one trailer was 923 stored on the property ortheir transition in and out. 924 Mr. Commers advised that these trailers were not typically moved in our out, making this 925 tenant and use less onerous on streets and the neighborhood that previously found and 926 that could ease some of the concerns expressed by Commissioners.Mr. Commers 927 expressed his firms’ desire to move this forward, and noted their ownership of other 928 properties elsewhere in Roseville, including some parcels directly across the street from 929 this subject site, allowing them better control of the area.However, Mr. Commers also 930 noted that Roseville Properties continued to be caught in a position of uncertainty about 931 the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area, which had been the case for some time now, with 932 this twenty-acre site serving as a lynchpin that hesaw setting off redevelopment of this 933 broader area.In an effort to further ease some of the concerns of the Commission, Mr. 934 Commers offered to sign this parcel that future development is coming and a potential 935 timeframe for that redevelopment for the benefit of residents driving down the street to 936 assure them the City was not taking a step backward and hopefully send a clear 937 message that redevelopment was coming.Mr. Commers reiterated that the goal was to 938 assure the community that property owners and theCity were taking positive steps 939 forward to redevelop these properties. 940 Regarding the timeframe, Member Bull noted that if a 2 year IU term was provided, the 941 property owner would need to make a decision within eighteen months whether or not to 942 extend the IU or the City Council would need to start making plans for vacating it. 943 Therefore, Member Bull suggested a 3 year IU seemed more appropriate for decision- 944 making for all parties. 945 Member Cunningham asked Mr. Commers if a 2 year IU term was worth their time. 946 Mr. Commers responded that staff had agreed to a 3 year maximum term and would not 947 budge on a longer term.Therefore, Mr. Commers noted that it only provided more 948 incentive for them to get this site redeveloped as soon as possible, since it isn’t a 949 profitable site in its current use or condition, and not even covering taxes with current 950 revenues under current zoning restrictions.Mr. Commers reiterated the intent of 951 Roseville Properties in even pursuing this IU was an attempt to offset expenses and get 952 out of that situation as soon as possible, allowing a certain amount of time to come up 953 with ideas and start that process.Mr. Commers advised that a 3 year IU term would be 954 preferable, but even if a 2 or 2.5 year term, they would take what they could get, since 955 they were at the mercy of the Commission and City Council, but reiterated that Roseville 956 Properties was in it for the long haul. 957 Chair Boguszewski noted that it still didn’t preclude Roseville Properties from coming 958 back for an extension if things didn’t work out, with Mr. Commers responding that he 959 remained optimistic that the next great deal was forthcoming. 960 Chair Boguszewski stated that this additional discussion had not served to move him 961 from his previous position, opining that something determined to be an undesirable use 962 on this 40,000 square foot property continued to be undesirable even if intended for the 963 short term until something better could be found.Considering the long-term plan for this 964 area and from a process perspective, Chair Boguszewski stated that he was not 965 amenable to making a motion to support this IU request. 966 Before considering revising the proposed conditions for approval of this IU, Member 967 Murphy suggested another solution seeking a proposal everyone could support, 968