2010-01-06_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 06, 2010 Page 8 to allow the previous vehicle emissions testing use in addition to a variance 360 allowing the now-existing parking area to encroach into the required front yard to 361 avoid the multitude of easements throughout the middle and rear of the property. 362 Mr. Lloyd advised that staff was generally supportive of the request and noted that 363 the requirement for opaque fencing to screen outdoor storage was part of normal 364 City Code for this type of use, and would not be required as an additional 365 condition of approval. Further discussion included the front fence height maximum 366 at four feet (4’); and relocating the bulk storage bins behind the building. 367 Discussion among Commissioners and staff included type of outdoor storage 368 proposed for the landscaping and snow removal business, and if those bulk 369 supplies would consist of salt and/or chemicals and if they were proposed to be in 370 open or covered containers, with staff responding that other than practical 371 matters, any environmental requirements would be regulated by an agency other 372 than the City, such as the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and would not be 373 part of the land use application. 374 Applicant Representatives, Steve Nilsson, Principal of Complete Building 375 Maintenance and Steve Schwanke – Civil Engineer with RLK 376 Mr. Nilsson reviewed his history in the City of Roseville as an active, commercial 377 industrial broker over the last seventeen (17) years, citing some of the other 378 buildings he’d been involved with; and his current partnership with Capital 379 Partners, acquiring and owning properties within the metropolitan area, and the 380 need to locate their maintenance facility closer to their properties. 381 Mr. Nilsson asked that the Commission, in their deliberations, consider it within 382 the context of surrounding properties. Mr. Nilsson provided visuals of those 383 properties and the rationale for locating the outdoor storage bins in the front of the 384 property adjacent to the loading dock doors, and utilizing the existing landscaping 385 berm and trees, which would serve to screen the loading doors and bins. Mr. 386 Nilsson, on behalf of Complete Building Maintenance (CBM), asked the 387 Commission to consider allowing perimeter screening of the entire property to be 388 deferred until the adjacent commercial properties were required to do the same. 389 Mr. Nilsson assured Commissioners that his firm did not use any chemicals for ice 390 removal during the winter, just road salt and sand, and only on a seasonal basis. 391 Mr. Schwanke, in his role in working with the operations manager for CBM, noted 392 the size of the outdoor storage bins at a maximum of 15’ x 25’ to allow storage at 393 this site for 1-2 snow events at the most at any given time, with no intention to 394 store the sand/salt for the entire winter, given the limited space on the site. 395 Discussion between Commissioners and the applicant included amount of 396 materials proposed for storage; City Code provision that outdoor storage uses be 397 located in the rear yard; compliance with screening requirements being triggered 398 by new requests for land use approvals; and inability of Commissioners to waive 399 the City Code’s screening provisions. 400 City Planner Thomas Paschke advised that his interpretation of City Code 401 required that screening of storage occur, and if someone was seeking approval of 402 outdoor storage as a Conditional Use, screening would need to occur at the time 403 of the event. Mr. Paschke noted that those commercial properties adjacent to the 404 subject parcel had been in existence for a number of years, and that City Code 405 may not have addressed those properties; however he noted that the Carlson – 406 Levine property made improvements during his tenure and under current City 407 Code and was required to have a screen wall at the time of their updates, similar 408 to this request. In relationship to the storage bins, Mr. Paschke advised that they 409 were considered accessory uses and would be required to be fenced to a height 410 of eight feet (8’), creating some difficulty since front yards were to be fenced to a 411 maximum of four feet (4’). Mr. Paschke advised that staff was not supportive of 412