Laserfiche WebLink
Member Cunningham asked for explanation of why two parcels are <br />needed. Member Mulder noted that it is nearly impossible to revert back <br />to a residential use. The Planning Commission must focus on the longer <br />term land use issues. <br />Chair Harms closed the hearing on Alternative #1. <br />Motion: <br /> Member Mulder moved, seconded by Member Rhody, to <br />recommenddenial of the single parcel proposal (alternative #1) as <br />described as the property occupied by Charles Cabinet at 3090 Cleveland <br />Avenue North, as originally requested by James and DebSchreier. <br />Motion carried 7-0. <br />Ayes: 7, Harms, Cunningham, Klausing, Olson, Mulder,Rhody,Wilke <br />Nays: None <br />MemberKlausing explained his concern about longer term use of one <br />parcel. <br />Member Cunningham expressed his concern regarding the longer term <br />uses of one parcel. <br />MemberMulder stated that he felt this request was spot zoning. <br />MemberKlausing argued that the west side of Cleveland is already <br />business and this is an extension of the business zone. <br />Member Cunningham explained the current proposal was a win-win <br />proposal for both the city and the applicant. <br />MemberWilke supports. <br />Proposal # 2 (Hearing #2): PF3022. Expanding the Comprehensive Plan <br />amendment and planned unit development to include the property <br />occupied by Charles Cabinet as well as the two homes to the north of <br />Charles Cabinet which are owned by James Schreier at 3090 Cleveland <br />Avenue North (proposed by Roseville Planning Commission). <br />Chair Harms opened the hearing and asked for clarification of the staff <br />report. Member Olson asked for clarification of the parking needs through <br />cross parking easement, PUD, and proof-of-parking requirements. <br />Member Cunningham asked for clarification of the residential use on the <br />site (to remain as long as additional parking or building space is not <br />needed). <br />4 <br />