2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Rustad spoke to the consideration by the Commission to continue this request, 401 advising that he would continue to own a percentage of the building, and as a resident of 402 Roseville, was conscious of business and resident concerns and issues.Therefore, Mr. 403 Rustad sought to clarify that the concern of the Commission was based on them not 404 knowing who the tenant is and potential impacts. 405 Chair Boguszewski responded affirmatively. 406 Given the previoussmall use of J. Arthur adjacent to this site, Mr. Rustad opined that it 407 provided a good idea of what type of tenant could occupy that 1,000 square footage. 408 Recognizing concerns raised about stacking and headlights for adjacent neighbors, Mr. 409 Rustad suggested approval be restricted and limiting options.Mr. Rustad opined it 410 sounded like staff had enough built-in fail safes that not just any tenant would be 411 approved. 412 Mr. Rustad noted that, as an owner of the building since 2003, time was of the essence 413 for this, and given the history of the building as a former sporting goods operation, now 414 under ownership as a large wholesale sporting goods company operating out of 415 Memphis, TN, noted that while currently still operating from the back of the building, it 416 would be relocating.Mr. Rustad noted that the pending sale was impacting that situation 417 and causing the push to move this forward now.Mr. Rustad sought Commission approval 418 by assuring them of the applicant’s willingness to meet any future restrictions or 419 conditions, and his recognition of neighbor concerns regarding lighting and the need for 420 appropriate screening. 421 Chair Boguszewski asked Mr. Rustad what he believed was his sense of urgency in 422 having the approval in hand while seeking tenants versus reporting to them the status of 423 the drive-through Conditional Use following the property. 424 Member Murphy opined that, even if approval was delayed, with the project file open and 425 paperwork already submitted, potential approval should be a quick turnaround. 426 When doinga project this size, Mr. Rustadnoted the significant amount of money being 427 expended for the facelift and making a nicer curb appeal for the building.Mr. Rustad 428 reviewed some of the planned improvements for this exterior façade; and the need to 429 present to lenders potential possibilities as part of their proforma or use for each space. 430 Mr. Rustad noted that this became personal on their part as well as financially necessary; 431 and as long as restrictions are in place and approved, opined it would provide sufficient 432 control for the City and staff to avoid tenants or uses that were not appropriate.Mr. 433 Rustad opined that previous drive-through approvals by the Commission, such as at 434 Caribou across from McDonald’s or near HarMar Mall in the past, were more at issue due 435 to the location and size versus the limited potential of this location and size. 436 At the risk of coming across irrationally, Member Bullclarified that his concerns were 437 based on many different viewpoints but centered around the unknowns –whether fulfilled 438 or not –and the uncertainty that a potential use may not address some of those 439 unknowns; of great concern to him with the Conditional Use going with the property. 440 Member Murphy noted even if granting a Conditional Use with a specific tenant, that 441 tenant could potentially change in six months, with the future not always known and 442 changing at any given point. 443 Member Bull stated that as long as protections could be guaranteed to enforce 444 restrictions, he was coming around to Member Murphy’s rationale. 445 MOTION 446 Member Murphymoved, seconded by Member Gitzento recommend to the City 447 Council approval of the proposed drive-through as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2425 448 Rice Street; based on the comments and findings contained the project report 449 dated July 1,2015; as conditioned in the staff report, with Condition B (line 157) 450 corrected to read “from” rather than “form;”and in line 164, Condition C be revised 451