2014_10_08_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Page 14 so the event couldn’t happen after the five years on or before an event that would 660 terminate the Interim Use. Mr. Broggert asked for additional language, referencing City 661 Council notes regarding periodic reviews, and that those reviews be included to make 662 sure the use remained as intended, and if not, the Interim Use could expire, giving 663 authority for terminating the use. 664 Mr. Broggert noted that the City had a long-term comprehensive plan, and if the City 665 adopted an open-ended Interim Use clause, it further deferred accomplishing that long- 666 term plan and goals, especially if the term is open-ended at twenty years or more, 667 requiring waiting another ten years after that to accomplish those long-term goals. While 668 Interim Uses are an important tool, Mr. Broggert opined that they needed some restraints. 669 Gary Grefenberg, 91 Mid Oaks Lane 670 Mr. Grefenberg clarified that he was appearing as a Roseville resident and also as a 671 coordinator of SWARN. While understanding and appreciating the comments of Chair 672 Gisselquist, Mr. Grefenberg opined that he did not approve of Interim Uses for specific 673 issues, but in response to Member Daire, when this Interim Use for Vogel Sheetmetal 674 was approved in June by this body, no one was aware that the bank financing sought by 675 Vogel would require a twenty year term, further opining that that was the main reason this 676 request is before the body, with the bank dictating what the City needed to do to follow 677 their financial arrangements. Being part of a neighborhood association, Mr. Grefenberg 678 questioned why the City was attempting to solve the Vogel issue by applying such an 679 amendment throughout the City that only serves to invite open-endedness and discredits 680 the intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning. Mr. Grefenberg questioned what the 681 zoning code meant if an Interim Use was allowed for up to twenty years; and expressed 682 his resentment in the bank trying to tell the City what to do with its land use policy and 683 applying it city-wide. Mr. Grefenberg noted that the City wasn’t’ concerned with financing 684 his home, and as a member of the community outside the immediate neighborhood, he 685 could not envision how the City thought it was going to solve a single problem by making 686 a change city-wide allowing Interim Uses for twenty years or longer. Mr. Grefenberg 687 opined that there were limits needed. 688 Kathleen Erickson, 1790 Centennial Drive 689 Ms. Erickson spoke in support of retaining the five year maximum time limit for Interim 690 Uses. As a long-term resident of Roseville, twenty-nine of them at this location adjacent 691 to Vogel Sheetmetal, Ms. Erickson opined that a limited term was her only protection by 692 the City, as the City used the Interim Use to determine if such a nonconforming use fit 693 with the adjacent neighborhood. Ms. Erickson noted that residents couldn’t move their 694 homes if this business use didn’t work for them; and noted the length of a twenty-year 695 use. Ms. Erickson stated that the residential property owners were attempting to be a 696 good neighbor, but there were many unknowns with the Vogel property and use, and the 697 Interim Use for a limit of five years provided the residential property owners some level of 698 confidence that their rights and interests were being looked after by the City, not just the 699 interests and needs of commercial property owners and their allowing a nonconforming 700 use to locate there. 701 Ms. Erickson openly admitted her bias, but also noted the view from her deck directly 702 onto this property; and while not against trying it out, any zoning code changes could 703 eliminate those protections, and allow use and operation of that property under the 704 applied Interim Use guidelines. While the onus should be on the Interim Use applicant, 705 Ms. Erickson noted that the onus instead is with the adjacent property owners with City 706 staff waiting for complaints, and having no periodic monitoring of Interim Uses. Ms. 707 Erickson reiterated the neighborhood’s negative experience with Aramark, and opined 708 that it was unfair to put the onus back on the residential neighbors, requiring them to 709 report, rather than looking out for their interests as well as those of business owners. 710 Member Boguszewski clarified that the intent of this proposed amendment, and as 711 referenced by Mayor Roe in the City Council meeting minutes, it could extend the life of 712 an Interim Use even beyond twenty years on a case by case basis. 713