pm_060309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 03, 2009 Page 6 that conditioning approval on fencing the sales/display area would be cost prohibitive for his proposed use. Vice Chair Boerigter noted the other large commercial uses in the vicinity (i.e., car dealerships) and questioned if a real concern existed for the proposed sale/display of light trailers versus medium, given those other adjacent uses. Mr. Lloyd advised that the zoning ordinance table only provided for light trailer use, not allowing for semi-trailer sales, whether intentional or just an oversight. Chair Doherty recommended that the applicant work with staff to identify “light trailers” as shown on Attachment C to the staff report dated June 3, 2009; opining that the definition in State Statute was too broad and should be defined as consistent with the photos provided in Attachment C. Mr. Lloyd noted that staff had provided that definition in Section 5.1 of the staff report, and noted the difficulty in recording Conditional Use approval with graphics or illustrations rather than in narrative form at Ramsey County. Mr. Lloyd advised that he would perform additional research to further define the intent of the Planning Commission. Public Comment No one appeared to speak for or against. Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing for Planning File 09-015 at 7:33p.m. MOTION Member Boerigter moved, seconded by Member Cook to RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL of the proposed CONDITIONAL USE for Twin City Truck Sales, allowing the sale of trailers at 2205 County Road C-2; based on the comments and findings of Sections 5 and 6; and the conditions of Section 7 of the project report dated June 3, 2009; amended as follows: Add Condition C that the applicant would work with staff to define “light duty trailers” ? by Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) or class as acceptable and consistent with illustrations provided in Attachment C prior to the case being heard at the City Council level; and that that definition be included in the Conditional Use documents recorded with Ramsey County as such. Commissioner Wozniak suggested an additional condition that the applicant works with staff to improve the aesthetics of the area, outside the 3,000 square foot display/sales area, through maintained grass, paving or landscaping techniques. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that he was not inclined to make that a condition of approval, since the applicant was a tenant, not the property owner; and advised that he would be more supportive of engaging the property owner in bringing the remaining property up to code at some point. Further discussion included the process for requiring paving of the current gravel lot, in conjunction with installation of curb and gutter and landscaping along the street frontage and property line; parking spaces on the site not related to this use; whether enough parking existed for different industrial uses already there; and staff’s perspective that conditions for Conditional Use approval be defensibly related to the requested use itself. Chair Doherty opined that he would not be supportive of requiring that the entire property be brought up to code. Vice Chair Boerigter opined that he would not be supportive of a condition on the entire property; however, he observed that it would be nice if the property owner would take the initiative to clean up the unpaved area on his own. Commissioner Gottfried opined that he wasn’t sure how far to push this discussion since the property owner was not present to confirm their intent. Vice Chair Boerigter suggested that the Condition B of staff’s recommendations remain as indicated; with the applicant and/or property owner strongly encouraged by the