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 on what is known as the Parranto Industrial Park, and provided written covenants placed on property to protect adjacent property owners of any negative impacts of building structures affecting the view to adjoining property owners; to make all three (3) dealerships more appealing from 35W; and to give the commercial property area in Roseville a more consistent and clean conforming appearance. Mr. Golinvaux provided visuals of existing elevations and site lines, as well as architectural renderings of proposed construction at the Walser site and his perception of the potentially negative impacts to views of his dealership. Mr. Golinvaux was passionate and detailed in his request for Planning Commission denial of the proposed plan for the building, until such time that he and Walser agree to a workable site plan for Walser redevelopment of the property. Mr. Phillips advised that their title search and new property survey had not discovered any restrictive covenants; however, he assured staff and Commissioners that he would immediately seek additional research and expressed his willingness to work with Mr. Golinvaux to alleviate his concerns and to find resolution for both parties in an effort to ensure and preserve the financial success and viability of both dealerships. welcomed the intent of Walser to redevelop their site. Discussion included the proposed height of the structure; grade changes at the property line that, from the regarding the height and square footage of the proposed Walser building. Further discussion included potential impacts of the use on market values of contiguous properties, with Commissioner consensus that as the other dealerships redeveloped their sites, they would need to comply with conditional use permits; with the use of the property remaining the same, but the difference being in how they redeveloped and used the property. Mr. Phillips noted that anytime a commercial building was built, it somehow blocked adjoining property views; and opined it was not a reasonable consideration to go beyond the normal setback requirements addressed by City Code for commercial zoning districts; and reiterated his intent to correct any appropriate setbacks not in application to ensure consistency and to ensure the views of both dealerships. Mr. Phillips advised that he was approaching the process in good faith and in accordance with City Code and asked for the same good faith considerations from the Planning Commission as they reviewed the CUP. demise. Chair Traynor closed the Public Hearing. Chair Traynor noted the competitive nature of the two contiguous businesses and properties and their impacts on each other; and sought staff and Commission consensus on how best to proceed. was under review, it would also be subjected to similar conditions and code adherence as was the Walser application; with staff attempting to be consistent in their review process and recommended conditions for a conditional use permit. Mr. Paschke further noted that the setback issue, restrictive covenants, and the MnDOT lease were private in nature, and that the City could only enforce their own code and State statute, noting that the information still needed to be provided to staff as part of their due diligence. Commissioner Doherty spoke in opposition to tabling the case; opining that a next door neighbor should not be able to control what a property owner did with his property; and the value of any automobile dealership was in the amount of money to be made, and was an ongoing business issue private and separate from the physical plant and land use issue before the Commission. Commissioner Boerigter opined his willingness to move forward; and his support of staff recommendations as within the domain of City standards and code. Commissioner Boerigter further opined his lack of support for tabling the case, noting that any additional information the staff could provide (i.e., the lease agreement with the State for right-of-way easement) would not affect the overall decision-making of the Commission. 8 of 122/6/2007 11.11