My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_010912
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2001
>
pm_010912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:36:00 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 8:04:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/12/2001
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Member Wilke asked if a second five-year application could be approved, or whether the permit could be for a longer <br />period of time. <br /> <br />Member Duncan asked if she wanted and interim use permit or "B-1" zoning. Agness responded that she wanted "B-1" <br />zoning, not an interim use. unless this is only option. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder asked whether more information was available regarding the original Special Use Permit for the Academy; <br />Ms Agness was not aware of the SUP, but relied on information from her real estate professional (now deceased). <br /> <br />Cindy Gardner, 2261 Lexington Avenue, reviewed the staff report and asked for a copy of the letter from Roger Dunnette <br />(08/08/01), which was placed in the minutes (copies are to be made available to those requesting them). <br /> <br />Roger Dunnette, 1085 W. Sherren St., adjacent property owner, requested that his statement (09/12/01) be attached to <br />the minutes of this meeting. He felt his property was most impacted. He commented on the staff report, regarding the <br />required fence; he does not agree that additional fencing or vegetation be added along Agness' south boundary. The <br />fence would enclose the lot, which would be negative. A fence between the properties would run at a diagonal along the <br />property line, not parallel to the Sherren Street. He agreed with the denial of the staff recommendation on Comprehensive <br />Plan and zoning and agreed with the interim use concept, except that item 5, the screening fence along the south line, not <br />be constructed because of the existing natural barrier foliage. The foliage is on both the Dunnette and Agness properties. <br /> <br />Bill Schorn, Schorn Realty, explained that the commercial realtor and owner (Rymer) told them that SUP follows with the <br />property. The site had been used as a music academy business (for 40 years) and Schorn believed the commercial <br />realtor and Rymer. <br /> <br />Eric Mueller, 2255 Lexington Avenue, said the interim use permit would be appropriate. He cited a "B-1" zone at <br />Sandhurst and Lexington that had an old house, which was removed to allow a new B-1 business. <br /> <br />Sally Goodroad, 1075 Sherren Street, stated she was confused with uses "River Valley Mortgage" and "Schorn Realty". <br />Why, if Mr. Rymer had a business for 40 years, would Ms Agness not accept an interim use permit to operate a business? <br />She felt threatened by the proposal for a group home. She was opposed to rezoning to "B-1" because such zoning would <br />be permanent. An interim use permit is a renewable use permit with conditions, which are reasonable and fair. The <br />property would only be used for real estate or mortgage office. Ms. Goodroad recommended that the fence along the east <br />property line remain (and possibly be improved) but should not be removed. Ms. Goodroad has installed and maintained <br />the existing fence for years. No snow should be placed against the fence. <br /> <br />Cindy Gardner, 2261 Lexington Avenue, supported the conclusion (interim use) except for the intrusive light, which has <br />been corrected by the applicant. The noise is buffered by the natural vegetation. <br /> <br />Ed Hanes 1063 Sherren St., concurred with neighbors and recommended the interim use permit, which could be <br />renewed. <br /> <br />Frank Hagerty, 1086 Sherren St., concurred with Roger Dunnette's comments supporting an interim use permit. <br /> <br />Craig Boates, an attorney representing Schorn Realty and River Valley Mortgage within the same building, indicated item <br />12, page 4, of the draft interim use permit resolution states that there is "no vested rights or legal entitlement" and that he <br />objected to this wording because of uncertainty of renewal. <br /> <br />Mark Traynor asked Mr. Boates if the interim use permit request is being withdrawn (No). <br /> <br />Mr. Wilke clarified that a "B-1" does not guarantee a complimentary use, but does increase neighbor uncertainty. Mr. <br />Boates stated that there are few other uses for the site; no building could be built except a small office building. <br /> <br />Member Traynor asked for concerns within draft interim use permit. Mr. Boates concern was that the permit is only an <br />interim use, not permanent. <br /> <br />No further comments were offered; Chair Mulder closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder asked the Planning Commission to narrow the options available to the site. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked if Section 12 of the interim use permit resolution could be rewritten to provide some comfort <br />for the applicant. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.