My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-09-07_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-09-07_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/20/2011 2:33:41 PM
Creation date
12/20/2011 2:33:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
9/7/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 <br />Page 4 <br />Boguszewski would be commuters knowing about the coffee shop diverting onto Transit <br />148 <br />Avenue to get to the drive-through, perhaps creating a trade-off for current and new traffic <br />149 <br />issues. <br />150 <br />Mr. Nelson advised that those coming in wouldn’t get into the residential area before they <br />151 <br />used the drive-through; and didn’t anticipate any additional traffic issues. <br />152 <br />Member Strohmeier questioned the process and action steps if the noise levels became <br />153 <br />problematic; and the role the Planning Commission would play in removing the <br />154 <br />Conditional Use approval or whether it would be handled administratively. <br />155 <br />Mr. Paschke opined that even if a popular, national chain type of coffee shop located in <br />156 <br />this strip mall tomorrow, it would not increase traffic; noting that 75-80% of the traffic <br />157 <br />issues are already there. Now, Mr. Paschke advised that the only operational change <br />158 <br />through approval of a Conditional Permit for a drive–through would be routing the traffic <br />159 <br />behind versus in front of the building; and assured Commissioners that increased traffic <br />160 <br />due to issuing this Conditional use was not of the magnitude being discussed. <br />161 <br />Mr. Paschke opined that the traffic problem in the area already existed and it wasn’t <br />162 <br />going to go away, whether or not this Conditional Use was approved. Mr. Paschke opined <br />163 <br />that the best way to turn from Transit Avenue onto Rice Street was to turn left and north <br />164 <br />at County Road B-2 at the stoplight. Mr. Paschke advised that it would be hard to <br />165 <br />determine whether or not a Conditional Use was meeting or not meeting a condition <br />166 <br />related to traffic, or proving something was not acceptable or not meeting criteria when <br />167 <br />the problem already existed prior to the Conditional Use approval. Mr. Paschke opined <br />168 <br />that he could think of a number of permitted uses that could go into that strip mall that <br />169 <br />would further exacerbate traffic issues in the area and generate far more traffic that <br />170 <br />simply installing a window for drive-through in an already permitted use. <br />171 <br />Member Strohmeier sought further satisfaction, aside from traffic issues, for signs and <br />172 <br />decibel levels if a use was found to be a nuisance and the process for those steps. <br />173 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that a Conditional Use was monitored and regulated by the <br />174 <br />Community Development Department/Planning staff on a regular basis, including lighting <br />175 <br />such as for a menu board. Mr. Paschke advised that the menu board would face <br />176 <br />southwest, and noted that it would therefore not be directed at residences in question; <br />177 <br />and even those homes across County Road B-2 that were quite a distance away. Mr. <br />178 <br />Paschke advised that there was nothing in current code that would preclude someone <br />179 <br />having an illuminated sign, not a menu board, lit for 24-hours; although it was common <br />180 <br />practice for the signs to have a timer to shut them off after hours so a <br />181 <br />commercial/business could realistically save energy. Mr. Paschke advised that speaker <br />182 <br />volumes and lighting concerns were all easily regulated by staff as previously addressed; <br />183 <br />and done on a case by case basis. Mr. Paschke noted that often the location and <br />184 <br />direction of the speaker, as well as its volume, could be adjusted to avoid any nuisance <br />185 <br />concerns. <br />186 <br />Mary Imgrund <br />187 <br />Ms. Imgrund noted suggested that Mr. Nelson route traffic on Ida Avenue, as long as it <br />188 <br />didn’t further disrupt their neighborhood. <br />189 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff would not encourage that movement, since Ida was not a <br />190 <br />public street, and privately owned. <br />191 <br />Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7:06 p.m. <br />192 <br />MOTION <br />193 <br />Member Wozniak moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist seconded, to <br />194 <br />RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL approval of a drive-through facility as a <br />195 <br />CONDITIONAL USE at 2435 – 2459 Rice Street; based on the comments and <br />196 <br />findings of Sections 4 – 6 and the conditions of Section 7 of the staff report dated <br />197 <br />September 7, 2011. <br />198 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.