Laserfiche WebLink
Regular Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, May 7, 2014 <br />Page 4 <br />Member Murphy questioned how the curved area would impact the holding pond; with <br />147 <br />Mr. Lloyd responding that he was not sure of a technical response, and if the Public <br />148 <br />Works/Engineering staff review had found the need to retain an easement on the <br />149 <br />property, it would remain even with the requested vacation. <br />150 <br />Member Daire questioned the length of the cul-de-sac Patton Road; with Mr. Lloyd <br />151 <br />responding that even if longer than current standards as a pre-existing and non- <br />152 <br />conforming condition under State Statute, the property owners would still be required to <br />153 <br />provide solutions for emergency vehicle access and turnaround areas. With the <br />154 <br />assistance of Mr. Paschke, Mr. Lloyd noted the current maximum length was 500’, but <br />155 <br />staff was unable to find a record of variance action that addressed the street length as <br />156 <br />part of their review and analysis. <br />157 <br />Member Daire noted that, in Section 4.2 of the staff report, the business addition was <br />158 <br />done in 1985, at which time Patton Road was 600’ long; and then in 1987, that length <br />159 <br />was extended to 1200’. <br />160 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted that the current code standards and maximum lengths could have been <br />161 <br />incorporated or revised after the fact, but remained as legal, non-conforming provisions. <br />162 <br />Mark Rancone, Applicant Representative with Roseville Properties, and <br />163 <br />representing the building owner partnership <br />164 <br />Mr. Rancone noted that this business park consisted of four buildings on Patton Road, <br />165 <br />and owned by those business partners listed in the staff report. <br />166 <br />Mr. Rancone noted that, when the buildings were built in the 1980’s, their use was for a <br />167 <br />combination office/warehouse use, with 30% office and 70% warehouse with loading <br />168 <br />docks. Over time, Mr. Rancone noted that the use had evolved to medical start ups and <br />169 <br />other office business uses, and had now been converted to almost 100% office use, and <br />170 <br />little warehouse use remaining. Mr. Rancone noted that part of this was due to a no <br />171 <br />longer efficient warehouse use with 14’ access doors as had been used in the 1980’s. In <br />172 <br />order to accommodate this higher office percentage use, Mr. Rancone advised that the <br />173 <br />business park owners were attempting to accommodate additional parking requirements <br />174 <br />of employees; and that this request would serve to extend the parking by an additional <br />175 <br />seven stalls, which would extend into the public right-of-way. Mr. Rancone advised that, <br />176 <br />therefore, it had been determined that it was a good time to clear up the right-of way and <br />177 <br />lot lines and incorporate all parking on their own land, including that corner of the <br />178 <br />property. <br />179 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Rancone addressed intended stall sizes and <br />180 <br />restriping of those stalls. Mr. Rancone clarified that, even though there were no code <br />181 <br />restriction on stall size, if necessary, they could post signs for compact car use if deemed <br />182 <br />too small for regular vehicles; but that their intention was that most would be 9’ - 10’ wide <br />183 <br />and 16’ – 18’ deep, depending on the total area available. Mr. Rancone noted that the <br />184 <br />intent was to provide as many stalls as possible to accommodate employees. <br />185 <br />Chair Gisselquist closed Public Hearing at 7:10 p.m.; no one appeared for or against. <br />186 <br />MOTION <br />187 <br />Member Boguszewski moved, seconded by Member Gisselquist to recommend to <br />188 <br />the City Council APPROVAL of the proposed VACATION of the unused right-of- <br />189 <br />way at 2501 – 2699 Patton Road; based on the comments and findings of Sections <br />190 <br />4 – 6 and the recommendation of Section 7 of the staff report dated May 7, 2014. <br />191 <br />Ayes: 5 <br />192 <br />Nays: 0 <br />193 <br />Motion carried. <br />194 <br />b. PLANNING FILE 14-006 <br />195 <br />Request by the University of Northwestern for a Text Amendment to the Zoning <br />196 <br />Ordinance to allow student housing as a permitted use in the Community Business <br />197 <br />District. The Roseville Community Development Department is also seeking a <br />198 <br /> <br />