2015-10-07_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 2, 2015 Page 21 perspective that didn’t create the problematic issues for drive lanes and internal traffic 1019 flow on the property. 1020 Mr. Paschke briefly reviewed staff’s analysis of criteria for this IU application, and 1021 recommended approval with similar conditions as addressed in the last case. 1022 Member Stellmach questioned if and when IU properties area inspected to ensure 1023 conditions are being complied with during its term. 1024 Mr. Paschke advised that the Community Development Department initially reviewed the 1025 applicant’s plan to meet those requirements, along with the Fire Marshal, with that initial 1026 inspection to determine compliance, with subsequent staff inspections to make sure they 1027 were meeting the objectives and goals of the IU. 1028 Member Bull opined that this IU request seemed to be for trailer storage as well and 1029 didn’t reference the contractor business, causing him to question if this was considered a 1030 permitted use on this property as currently zoned. 1031 Mr. Paschke responded that the contractor storage use was not a permitted use, and 1032 similar to the previous IU request, upon staff’s completion of an inspection of the site 1033 noted a number of existing violations related to current zoning code, with the property 1034 owner subsequently provided written notice of that noncompliance item by item and 1035 requirement to bring it into compliance within a certain timeframe.Upon meeting with the 1036 property owners and their tenant regarding those compliance violations, Mr. Paschke 1037 advised that the fence issue remained unresolved until the other concerns had been 1038 addressed; and resulting in application for this IU.Mr. Paschke opined that, given the 1039 amount of nonconformity on the site, versus the specific use of this particular property, an 1040 IU would expand and address multiple issues remaining on site. 1041 Member Bull noted the difference with this property compared to the previous IU request, 1042 with this property not being directly adjacent to other uses in the neighborhood and 1043 keeping in character with it even though it remained a nonconforming use. 1044 At the observation of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke corrected the term of the IU from 1045 September 1 to September 30 for its expiration (page 6, Condition 8) 1046 At the request of Member Bull regarding removal of concrete and gravel materials, Mr. 1047 Paschke noted that staff was allowing some latitude in relocating that material at another 1048 site depending on upcoming winter weather, but still requiring removal. 1049 Applicant Representatives 1050 Chad Commers, Vice President, Roseville Properties Management Co. (RPMC) 1051 Similar to the previous request, Mr. Commers advised that Roseville Properties had 1052 acquired this property from the bank approximately two years ago, and the site was also 1053 slated for redevelopment after this winter.Mr. Commers noted the end product for this 1054 site was being marketed for a 41,000 square foot office building within this industrial use 1055 area once the appropriate tenant was found to accomplish that use effectively.Mr. 1056 Commers advised that the gravel pile on site was actually residue from a Roseville street 1057 project, and the firm intended to remove it, potentially spreading it across the site to level 1058 current holes andprepare the site for re-use.Mr. Commers advised that other than for 1059 the trailer storage, Roseville Properties was agreeable to bring the use into compliance 1060 once that official direction had been given.Mr. Commers further advised that all leases 1061 for thissite were written with a short-term nature so when the opportunity came along to 1062 do something different with the property, Roseville Properties could take advantage of 1063 that. 1064 Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 9:22p.m.; no one spokefor or against. 1065 Commissioner Position Statements 1066 Member Murphystated that, as much as the previous IU application offended him, he 1067 found this IU request to fit well at this location, and seemed to be a good continued use 1068 short-term until redeveloped. 1069