02-16-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Partnership, said Paula Dunn of Kolstad and Jerry Vogel, the project architect, were present. Kolstad intends the tower to remain available to other tenants of the property. Kolstad would not use the tower, but a future tenant might use it. Livingston asked if the site was vacant now. Barnes responded it was vacant and his client intends to purchase the site and lease it to one of its companies, Kolstad Company. They would lease about 75 percent of the existing building to other tenants. These tenants could take advantage of the automated inventory system and the warehouse facility. Schiferl said the applicant stressed the similarity between the proposed use and the US West use. Was the outdoor storage allowed in the US West approval? Teague said he thought the outdoor storage was an accessory use that went along with the approval. The landscaping around the perimeter was probably required because of the outdoor storage on the site. Barnes stated the picture of the property displayed in the City Hall atrium depicts the site well. The picture shows an eleven-acre site filled with cables and trucks. To take advantage of the site, outdoor storage is necessary. When Crosson first reviewed the property and looked at the permitted uses, the site consisted of a truck terminal and truck yard. Had Crosson been aware of the ordinance amendment under consideration, it would have used different language in its application. Barnes stated Crosson’s position is that those are permitted uses now. All the uses anticipated by Kolstad would be done indoors. In fact, the property would be more aesthetically pleasing than when US West occupied the site. An 11-acre site would attract users with trucks and accessory outdoor storage. It is our position that we have addressed the concerns of the City’s staff. Frankly, Crosson/Kolstad feels that, had there not been an amendment consideration for changing the current Zoning Code, the use it anticipates for the site is well designed and well suited to Barnes’ clients’ purposes. Therefore, Barnes stated he disagreed with staff on a number of points. Please consider the application and recommend approval of Special Use Permit. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. John Allen, managing partner of Industrial Equities, stated he developed the business park in question. Allen stated he had 250,000 feet contiguous to the proposed facility. To say that the proposal is consistent with the current uses is a vast overstatement. What Crosson/Kolstad is proposing is a truck terminal. The proposal would have an adverse environmental impact on Jones Lake. Allen stated that, when he platted his development, he gave the City enough land around the perimeter to have a parkway for a running path on one side of the lake. Putting a truck terminal on the shores of Jones Lake, would be an environmental hazard and an aesthetic blight. Trucks would be coming and going constantly. This proposal is for a truck terminal and that is precisely what the City said it did not want when we developed the park seven years ago. The City wanted an upscale business park. The proposed use is inconsistent with that desire. The spools US West stored on the site were not as visible as the proposed use would be. The applicant would either store or repair the trucks on the site. The use would have a detrimental impact on the value of the contiguous properties. Allen said he owned all the contiguous properties. Allen repeated he was opposed to the application for environmental, safety, and aesthetic reasons. Allen stated he was putting the Planning Commission and the City Council on notice that he would intervene legally if the City grants these amendments. The proposed use is not an I-1, Light Industrial use. The use is the same type of use cities such as Roseville is trying to get rid of. The proposed use is inconsistent with anything we have anticipated doing in this park. Allen thanks the Commission for hearing him. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the issue. Paul O’Brien, the president of Kolstad Companies, said that in answer to the environmental issues, Kolstad does not work on trucks at all. Kolstad does not perform engine work, oil changes or anything concerning truck tractors. Kolstad deals with trailers. Kolstad is in the “box” business. Kolstad fixes over-the-road trailer boxes. In the case of a van body, Kolstad puts it on a chassis. Kolstad also puts tool boxes on trailers. The 9 I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\02-16-99.WPD