Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />page:fl: 13 <br /> <br />Wednesday, May 4, 1988 <br /> <br />and has value to that business. Berry responded that the <br />ordinance may require it anyway, and questioned whether it was a <br />code enforcement issue only and not appropriate to be tied to <br />this lot split. <br /> <br />Honchell testified that it was a questionable tie. <br /> <br />Dahlgren informed the commission that there was B-3 zoning in the <br />area and that the manufacturing use was non-conforming. There <br />are limits on changing non-conforming uses. The best solution is <br />for the owner to move, but that the owner is unwilling to do so. <br /> <br />Roger Hess, 1911 Rice Street, testified that it was appropriate <br />to clean up the site, that the fence on the site was improperly <br />constructed. Hess said that he was not against the proposal, <br />but that a new fence was needed and the owner should be required <br />to clean up the property. <br /> <br />Krengle answered that the fence was a requirement by the Council, <br />but that there was no direction given about the type of fence to <br />be put up. The owner does not have a problem taking the fence <br />down but is concerned that he is the only one in the area <br />required to put up a fence. <br /> <br />Al Kehr responded that there was a long debate before the City <br />Council, that the Council explicitly told the proponent at the <br />time what kind of fence would be required, and that the City had <br />orders out to take down the fence. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned what the intended use of the new 110 foot <br />parcel would be. Krengle indicated that they had an interested <br />party on the north parcel but that they would just continue the <br />existing use of the south parcel. They would continue and <br />legalize the use of the parking area by Land Z Company <br />employees. Krengle further indicated that a number of parties <br />had expressed interest in various portions of the site, but no <br />plan for change has been made. <br /> <br />DeBenedet questioned why a PUD was required. Dahlgren responded <br />that because lot lines were changing and zero parking setbacks <br />would result that a PUD would be necessary. A PUD also allows <br />the city to review other issues such as access, fences, and <br />cleanup which other approaches would not. <br /> <br />DeBenedet expressed concern that we were treating these people <br />differently than others in similar situations in the past. <br /> <br />Goedeke inquired if we could restrict Land Z use on the new <br />site. Dahlgren indicated that we can't disallow storage that has <br />