Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ROSEVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />Pagef12 <br /> <br />Wednesday, November 1, 1989 <br /> <br />DeBenedet said that whether or not the car dealership would fail <br />is not an issue which the Commission should discuss but they <br />should rather stick to land use. DeBenedet stated that it was a <br />difficult site and it would not be an easy one for development. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that things will take care of themselves and <br />eventually a good development will occur on the site. <br /> <br />Berry stated that the city can afford to wait for the intended <br />use on the site. <br /> <br />Berry moved and Goedeke seconded to recommend denial of the <br />application for rezoning, special use permit and variances at <br />2140 County Road C because the proposed down zoning and auto <br />dealer use is not consistent with the development planning that <br />has previously occurred in the area. The City made a commitment <br />to encourage more intense use of the area and the proposed use is <br />not appropriate for this site because it is an important gateway <br />to the B-6 and B-4 areas to the south. <br /> <br />stokes asked whether there was promises made to the developer and <br />that he was concerned about the amount of funds the developer has <br />expended to this point. stokes added that whether or not they <br />would go broke or not on the site is not an issue. <br /> <br />Johnson stated that staff does not make promises and that the <br />developer is well aware of what the planning was and that is why <br />we have the process. Johnson pointed out that the proposed <br />building could go on any site because it is a prototype. <br />Dahlgren replied that staff explained to the developer in detail <br />what had gone on in the area and the risks involved. Dahlgren <br />added that the developer was aware that the burden on them was to <br />prove that it would be an appropriate use on the site and that <br />they were aware of the risk. Dahlgren stated that staff doesn't <br />make promises and that there are no guarantees. Dahlgren said <br />that the developer was advised to put the best foot forward. <br />Dahlgren said that the developer did a superb job with a <br />difficult product and it is difficult to overcome the car dealer <br />image. Dahlgren stated that the proposed use is better than some <br />uses that could occur on the site and is better than what is <br />there now. <br /> <br />Krank stated that at no time did staff make them any promises. <br />Krank requested a copy of the commitments made in the past and <br />stated that they may have done things differently if they had <br />been aware of that. Krank also pointed out to the Commission <br />that they had a neighborhood meeting and no one showed up to <br />express any objections. <br />