2015-07-01_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 3, 2015 Page 5 From the Commission or Staff b. 197 Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners of their joint meeting with the City Council 198 scheduled for Monday, 6. 2015;and suggested an item to include may be defining the 199 Commission’s role and interactions with the City Council. 200 Mr. Paschke reported that two items on the joint meeting agenda included: the 201 consultants hired recently to address the Planned Unit Development(PUD) process and 202 subsequent modificationsand to review and make recommendation for revisions to the 203 current Tree Ordinance.Mr. Paschke advised that both consultants had been asked to 204 attend this joint meeting.Mr. Paschke encouraged Commissioners to feel free to bring 205 their thoughts, ideas and concerns forward before or during that meeting to reshape the 206 existing tree ordinance and craft a new PUD ordinance. 207 Mr. Paschke opined that this annual joint meeting provided a great opportunity for the 208 Commission and City Council to interact and share thoughts. 209 Public Hearings 5. 210 Chair Boguszewski reviewed the protocol for public hearings and subsequent process. 211 a.PLANNING FILE No. 15-007 212 Request by Spire Credit Union, owner of the property at 1880 Perimeter Drive, to 213 allow a drive-through at the new Spire branch as a CONDITIONAL USE under 214 Roseville City Code, Section 1009.02.C (General Standards and Criteria) and 215 Section 1009.02.D.12 (Specific Standards and Criteria –Drive-Through). 216 Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PlanningFile 15-007at 7:21 p.m. 217 City Planner Thomas Paschkesummarized this request as detailed in the project report 218 dated June 3, 2016.Mr. Paschke noted this request for a Conditional Use (CU) had been 219 prompted by plans to develop the vacant lot at 1880 Perimeter Drive into a new Roseville 220 branch office forSpire Credit Union complete with a drive-through. Mr. Paschke advised 221 that staff had been working RSP Architects on the appropriate siting of the building, drive 222 lanes, on-site parking,and design standards related to the building and site. 223 Mr. Paschke advised that staff recommendedapproval of the request for aCU for the 224 drive-through, as specifically conditioned in accordance with City Code criteria(Section 225 1009.02.D.13). 226 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Paschke advised that validation of the conditions 227 for CU approvalwould be recorded with Ramsey County against the property itself. 228 To further clarify timelines for construction versus CU approval, Senior Planner Bryan 229 Lloyd reviewed City Code provisions regarding each specific approval process. 230 Regarding the receipt of written safety concerns addressed by Mr. Paschke identified 231 under this record’s public comments from an adjacent business, Member Stellmach 232 sought clarification asto whether or not the Commission had the ability to place 233 conditions on the construction or only on the CU. 234 Mr. Paschke stated that the Commission had the authority to make reasonable conditions 235 on anything germane and within their review parameters.However, Mr. Paschke clarified 236 that this only related to the CU itself, and not the construction or construction site itself. 237 In recognizing the history of this planning file, Member Stellmach noted a similar CU 238 approval in 2007, and questioned the outcome of that application. 239 Mr. Paschke responded that, while it was a similar proposal, this updated CU request 240 required the applicant to meet heightened design standards based on current City Code. 241 While the site plan was generally laid out the same as in 2007, Mr. Paschke advised that 242 those higher standards needed to be met under that current code. 243