Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, June 5, 2013 <br />Page 3 <br />Ayes: 5 <br /> <br />96 <br />Nays: 0 <br />97 <br />Motion carried unanimously by super majority. <br />98 <br />Anticipated City Council action is scheduled at their June 17, 2013 meeting. <br />99 <br />PROJECT FILE 13-0017 <br />b. <br />100 <br />Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT <br />101 <br />CHANGES to Sections 1005-02 Design Standards and 1009.02D Specific Standards <br />102 <br />and Criteria regarding drive-through and refuse locations <br />103 <br />Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at about 6:50 p.m. <br />104 <br />City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT constituting <br />105 <br />minor tweaks to sections as detailed in the staff report dated June 5, 2013. <br />106 <br />Discussion included various existing examples (e.g. Rainbow/Roundy’s on Larpenteur <br />107 <br />and Fernwood Avenues) and their drive-through pharmacy window locations, with some <br />108 <br />applications completed prior to the 2010 Zoning Code update; with many of those <br />109 <br />existing projects that might now require a variance. <br />110 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that there was some flexibility for locating drive-throughs based on <br />111 <br />the building’s footprint, its design prototype, and obvious traffic flow for location drive- <br />112 <br />throughs and/or dock doors; with an administrative review possible versus the more <br />113 <br />formalized process, based on design standards in place. <br />114 <br />At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke assured the Commission that the <br />115 <br />administrative decision process provided enough enforcement for staff to ensure projects <br />116 <br />met code requirements “to the extent feasible,” and if any deviation was sought, the <br />117 <br />applicant would need to provide sound information and rationale for their building layout <br />118 <br />not meeting code. In the end, Mr. Paschke advised that if staff determined that the <br />119 <br />applicant would meet code, it would not consider any deviation, and if the applicant <br />120 <br />chose, could appeal that administrative decision to the City Council as recourse. <br />121 <br />Chair Gisselquist closed the Public Hearing at 7:04 p.m.; no one spoke for or against. <br />122 <br />MOTION <br />123 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to <br />124 <br />the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS to <br />125 <br />Sections 1005.01 Design Standards and 1009.02D.12 Conditional Uses; Specific <br />126 <br />Standards and Criteria; and Drive-through Facilities; as detailed in Section 2 of the <br />127 <br />Project Report dated April 25, 2013. <br />128 <br />Ayes: 5 <br /> <br />129 <br />Nays: 0 <br />130 <br />Motion carried. <br />131 <br />Anticipated City Council action is scheduled at their June 17, 2013 meeting. <br />132 <br />PROJECT FILE 13-0017 <br />c. <br />133 <br />Request by Roseville Planning Division for consideration of ZONING TEXT <br />134 <br />CHANGES to Sections 1005.02I and 1006.02D specific to Garage Doors and <br />135 <br />Loading Docks requirements and creation of a new definition in Section 1001.10 of <br />136 <br />the Zoning Ordinance for overhead doors. <br />137 <br />Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Project File 13-0017 at about 7:05 p.m. <br />138 <br />City Planner Paschke reviewed this requested ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT for <br />139 <br />clarifying types of doors and creating a new designation regarding overhead doors, as <br />140 <br />detailed in the staff report dated June 5, 2013. <br />141 <br />Mr. Paschke advised that this issue had come up during a review of industrial projects <br />142 <br />along Walnut Street, and the City’s overarching goal to not have certain types of doors <br />143 <br />facing a public street (e.g. distribution facilities) and rather that they be located on the <br />144 <br />interior or at the read. Mr. Paschke noted that this came up again when FedEx installed <br />145 <br /> <br />