|
Regular Planning Commission Meeting
<br />Minutes – Wednesday, October 8, 2014
<br />Page 17
<br />aspect of an Interim Use based on whether the bank would accept anything beyond a
<br />821
<br />fixed date or a renewable five year Interim Use.
<br />822
<br />Going back to the entire code, Ms. McCormack opined that it would be remiss to consider
<br />823
<br />this proposed amendment separate from the current application process. When the Vogel
<br />824
<br />application first came up for hearing, Ms. McCormack noted her questions related to the
<br />825
<br />landscape plan, and in reviewing the proposed plans, found them very ambiguous related
<br />826
<br />to the site, landscaping, grading and drainage, and at that time questioned what was
<br />827
<br />required and what was at the discretion of the Community Development Director. In
<br />828
<br />speaking on behalf of the neighborhood, Ms. McCormack assured that they were trying to
<br />829
<br />be reasonable, and expressed their empathy for the unfortunate situation Vogel is now in.
<br />830
<br />However, in her research of City document archives, she found seventy documents, with
<br />831
<br />all of those instances of Interim Uses falling into two categories for temporary uses (e.g.
<br />832
<br />sign permits, State Fair parking, or interim seasonal use) and another for the demolition
<br />833
<br />at Reservoir Woods, all of which she found to make sense. While some other uses were
<br />834
<br />of a longer term, Ms. McCormack noted that it seemed like renewable Interim Uses were
<br />835
<br />used in the place of a Conditional Use, which created a long-standing use in some cases
<br />836
<br />which she found particularly concerning. Ms. McCormack noted one such example was
<br />837
<br />the Minnesota Irrigation Corporation and boat storage along County Road C, both Interim
<br />838
<br />Uses. In the one instance, Ms. McCormack noted that the Interim Use had actually
<br />839
<br />lapsed for almost a decade, and another had lapsed for two years, without City staff
<br />840
<br />being aware of it, which from her perspective meant that they did not have an effective
<br />841
<br />monitoring process in place to ensure Interim Uses were kept current, and if that was the
<br />842
<br />case, how could they be expected to provide periodic check backs. In the Interim Use
<br />843
<br />provided to Minnesota Irrigation in 2010, the staff report provided statements from
<br />844
<br />Community Development Director Trudgeon referring that Interim Uses essentially set up
<br />845
<br />a contentious relationship between residents and businesses; and staff admitted at that
<br />846
<br />time that there was insufficient code enforcement officers available to address or correct
<br />847
<br />violations, and therefore, staff relied on complaints to monitor those situations. Ms.
<br />848
<br />McCormack opined that a complaint driven code enforcement program created a
<br />849
<br />weakness in that enforcement, and beyond putting a company out of business, and
<br />850
<br />putting the burden on property owners, situations often resulted in long-standing
<br />851
<br />renewable Interim Uses. Ms. McCormack noted that Interim Uses essentially put parcels
<br />852
<br />outside the City’s building code, when those neighbors were relying on the City to make
<br />853
<br />sure businesses were compatible to protect neighbors.
<br />854
<br />Specific to the requirements, Ms. McCormack opined that additional planning documents
<br />855
<br />were necessary, and in this case, one finding was that there should be no additional cost
<br />856
<br />to the public if required to take a property back after a nonconforming use. However, Ms.
<br />857
<br />McCormack opined that often environmental contamination had occurred requiring
<br />858
<br />mediation, which was at taxpayer expense.
<br />859
<br />Ms. McCormack advised that she reviewed peer cities, those used in the City’s
<br />860
<br />compensation plan review done in 2013, comparing the cities of Arden Hills, New
<br />861
<br />Brighton, St. Paul and Minneapolis among others, and found that those communities all
<br />862
<br />had terms of three to five years for their Interim Use, and while admittedly State Statute
<br />863
<br />has no stated timeframe, those not having a timeframe were significantly more stringent
<br />864
<br />in their planning requirements requiring more detailed plans to allow the city to accurately
<br />865
<br />assess long-term use of those sites. Ms. McCormack opined that the Cites of Arden Hills
<br />866
<br />and Minnetonka struck her as good examples to review if the City of Roseville was
<br />867
<br />serious about this proposed amendment.
<br />868
<br />While everyone had made their comments that this amendment is not in response to the
<br />869
<br />Vogel situation, Ms. McCormack respectfully disagreed with that position, noting that
<br />870
<br />there weren’t a lot of people seeking Interim Uses and requiring this amount of flexibility
<br />871
<br />other than Vogel; and therefore she could see no urgency in making this amendment.
<br />872
<br />Ms. McCormack referenced the Ramsey County mapping tool she had used to identify
<br />873
<br />the 431 residential parcels in their neighborhood and collective amount of property taxes
<br />874
<br />
<br />
|