Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Draft Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 <br />Page 2 <br />At the request of Member Murphy specific to unlicensed trailers versus those <br />42 <br />undergoing maintenance on site; Mr. Paschke clarified that Item 3 was related to <br />43 <br />outdoor storage, and was part of the criteria being considered for approval of this <br />44 <br />CU. <br />45 <br />Applicant Representative(s) <br />46 <br />•Ann Steingraeber ofWinthrop & Weinstein on behalf of a Roseville <br />47 <br />property owner, Koch Trucking <br />48 <br />•Robert K. Buss, Stan Koch & Sons Trucking, Inc., 42000 Vahlberg Drive, <br />49 <br />Minneapolis, MN (looking to purchase 2500 County Road C) <br />50 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Steingraeber introduced herself and <br />51 <br />Mr. Buss, advising that they had no additional comments beyond staff’s report; <br />52 <br />but offered to respond to questions of the body. <br />53 <br />Chair Boguszewski closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m.; no one spokefor or <br />54 <br />against. <br />55 <br />MOTION <br />56 <br />Member Bull moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City <br />57 <br />Council APPROVAL of the requested CONDITIONAL USE for a motor <br />58 <br />freight terminal at 2500 County Road C, pursuant to Sections 1009.02.C and <br />59 <br />1009.02.D.37 of Roseville City Code; and attached draft City Council <br />60 <br />resolution, subject to conditions as detailed in lines 56 –78 (page 3) of the <br />61 <br />staff report dated December 5, 2016, and based on public comments and <br />62 <br />Planning Commission input; amended as follows: <br />63 <br />•Draft resolution (Attachment D, Line 113) amended to read “undergoing <br />64 <br />maintenance” versus “being worked upon” to be consistent with the <br />65 <br />staff report (Line 73) per the request of Member Murphy and agreed to <br />66 <br />by the makers of the motion; <br />67 <br />•Subject to approval of the variance requests heard earlier tonight by the <br />68 <br />Variance Board; and <br />69 <br />•Subject to approval of the CU by the Roseville City Council at a <br />70 <br />subsequent meeting. <br />71 <br />Member Cunningham arrived at this time, approximately 6:15 pm <br />72 <br />Ayes: 6 <br />73 <br />Abstentions: 1 (Cunningham) <br />74 <br />Nays: 0 <br />75 <br />Motion carried <br />76 <br />6.Other Business <br />77 <br />a.2040 Comprehensive Plan Update <br />78 <br />With members of the Community Engagement Commission (CEC), representatives of <br />79 <br />WSB and LHB (consultants selected to lead Roseville’s comprehensive plan update <br />80 <br />process) and Planning Division staff, Planning Commission (PC) discussion of the <br />81 <br />proposed public engagement plan proposed by the consultants. <br />82 <br />Staff noted this discussion is intended to yield a recommendation to the City Council <br />83 <br />regarding how the proposed public engagement plan can be refined, expanded or <br />84 <br /> <br />