pm_060712 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for July 12, 2006http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0712.htm e.Planning File 3767: Cummings Mobility request for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to allow a motor vehicle dealer at 1755 County Road C for the display and sales of handicapped adapted vehicles. Chair Traynor opened the Public Hearing. City Planner Paschke reviewed the request of Cummings Mobility for approval of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to allow a motor vehicle dealership at 1755 County Road C. Mr. Paschke advised that, in 2005, former Community business that of fabricating and assembling parts for attaching within min-vans for handicapped riders and drivers. Mr. Paschke advised that in 2006, Cummings was sent a letter from City staff indicating that the sale of handicapped vehicles required a Conditional Use Permit, with the applicant then questioning how the Code recognized State Stattue68.26, Subd. 2(b) which stated that manufacturers of handicapped vehicles were exempt from requirements pertaining to motor vehicle dealer franchise, and subsequent review by the City Attorney and his finding that a Conditional Use Permit was required. Mr. Paschke advised that the current application requests allowance for a vehicle dealership and the ability to store, display and sell handicapped-equipped vehicles within the front parking lot of the property. setbacks and property line delineations; however, recommended approval, based on the information and findings provided in Sections 4 and 5 of the project report dated July 12, 2006. Mr. Paschke advised that staff was willing to work with the applicant on review of the Site Plan for customer parking of four (4) vehicles in the front of the lot; a as presented and conditioned, and further revisions could be accomplished prior to presentation to the City Council. Discussion included existing function of the site related to other tenants; proposed parking of vehicles in relationship to the property line and setbacks; clear demonstration of a designated drive lane for vehicle and pedestrian safety; relocation and height of existing fencing; signage and striping demarcation of the lot for parking and drive lanes; and impacts of the recent County Road C roadway widening and sidewalk installation. Considerable discussion ensued among the Commission, staff and Lawrence Marofski, Legal Counsel for Cummings Mobility, regarding the interpretation of the sidewalk placement; actual location of the property line; widening of County Road C and right-of-way easement impacts; need for staff to review with Ramsey County the type of easement for the sidewalk and confirm location of the property line; property ownership and delineation; and configuration of the lot. Mr. Marofski provided several diagrams for Commission and staff review and consideration regarding the existing property situation; fence location; proposed relocation of the fence; and proposed customer and employee parking locations, in addition to display parking; Further discussion ensued regarding the limited sales/display parking and maximum allowable, as per code and staff recommendation. Commissioners and staff recognized the additional display space needed for the nature of the vehicles displayed; and need for availability for interested parties to access the display area. Substantial discussion, confusion and interpretation were related to code specifications for fencing; and definition of front yard and side yard for this specific and unique property. Commissioners expressed their disappointment that a Site Plan had not been made available for review of the application; with additional discussion regarding access to the property; existing curb cut; modified curb; driveway widths; and signage plans for the future. City Planner Paschke advised Commissioners that they needed to determine if they had enough information available to make a decision tonight in enforcing City Code; noting that the fence location was a function of their lease agreement with the existing property owner and there was no restriction for relocation the fence except for identifying the configuration of the parking lot and number of display vehicles to be allowed. The applicant, Mr. Cummings, addressed future lighting and signage plans. Further discussion included recalculation of parking spaces for specific purposes as reconfigured by the applicant; landscaping condition. There was no one present for public comment related to this case. Chair Traynor closed the Public Hearing. 10 of 122/6/2007 11.11