Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Roseville Planning Commission Minutes <br />June 4, 1986 <br /> <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />Wiski asked if people came to the site to look at the trucks. <br />Nelson replied that they did not. <br /> <br />Goedeke asked Nelson whether he was satisfied with the surface of <br />the facility, and he also pointed out that Nelson's building <br />looked better than any of the others on the site. Nelson stated <br />that the surface works quite well as far as he is concerned. <br /> <br />Berry asked what has been repainted in the area. Nelson replied <br />that the inside was painted, and a significant amount of plywood <br />was replaced, and the outside has been completed excluding the <br />doors. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked whether only Nelson's part of the facility is <br />being painted. Nelson replied that yes, his portion of the leased <br />property has been painted, but the Quonset huts have not been <br />painted. <br /> <br />Dahlgren asked Mr. Nelson if he knows why Trapp has not completed <br />what he said he would complete. He also asked as to whether <br />Trapp is finally going to clean up the area and meet the previous <br />conditions as set forth by the City Council relating to previous <br />approvals for this site's development. Nelson replied that he <br />wasn't familiar with the requirements that Trapp was supposed to <br />complete, except he knows the building has been painted. <br /> <br />Wiski asked Mr. Dahlgren what specifically has to be done to meet <br />the requirements of previous conditions on the parcel. Dahlgren <br />stated that the area still has to be painted, there is poor <br />maintenance in the area, curbing has not been completed, the <br />parking areas are not properly surfaced, and the whole facility <br />exhibits improper maintenance. <br /> <br />DeBenedet asked whether all of these conditions are as yet <br />unaddressed. Dahlgren replied that yes, these conditions are the <br />ones that Trapp has not properly addressed. DeBenedet asked <br />whether a bond could be required to enforce compliance with <br />previous conditions. Demos pointed out that there has not been <br />new construction on this site for bonding purposes. She also <br />pointed out that this site, on numerous occasions, has been <br />considered for closing. <br /> <br />Wiski stated his concern that he thought Trapp should meet <br />previous conditions before additional Special Uses are approved. <br /> <br />Maschka asked whether the Council is the mechanism that takes the <br />action to put Mr. Trapp out of business. Demos replied yes, it is <br />a Council action; however, Trapp always claims that he will <br />address the problems in the area. <br /> <br />Johnson asked whether the Code Enforcement Division could close <br />Mr. Trapp. Demos replied that in order to close a business, it <br />would be best if it would be a specific Council action. She also <br />reiterated that Mr. Trapp, based on previous discussions with the <br />Council, knows fully well what he is required to do on the site. <br />