2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 Page 3 Ms. McCormick further opined that in the Vogel situation with Xcel Energy thatwas their 98 choice to involve a third party to trim trees; and was not barring them from moving 99 forward. 100 From the Commission or Staff b. 101 Mr. Paschke reminded Commissioners of the upcoming joint meeting with the City 102 Council at their July 6, 2015 meeting; and referenced the two agenda items and 103 presentations proposed at that meeting: Tree Preservation and Planned Unit 104 Developments, with both consultants available to address their respective areas of 105 expertise. 106 5.Public Hearings 107 Chair Boguszewski reviewed the protocol for public hearings and subsequent process. 108 a.PLANNING FILE No. 15-012 109 Request by Sun Control of Minnesota in cooperation with the owner of the 110 property at 2425 Rice Street, to allow a drive-through at the former Steichen’s 111 Sporting Goods as a CONDITIONAL USE under Roseville City Code, Section 112 1009.02.C (General Standards and Criteria) and Section 1009.02.D.12 (Specific 113 Standards and Criteria –Drive-Through) 114 Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for PlanningFile 15-012at 6:45p.m. 115 City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly reviewed the request for conditional useapproval of 116 a drive-through as part of remodeling of an existing buildingon a corner property, 117 accessing and frontingonRice Street, developing it into a multi-tenant buildingwith four 118 separate units proposed, with the building owner occupying one unit as a vehicle window 119 tinting business, and leasing the remainder of the units, including a drive-through option; 120 andas detailed in the project report dated July 1, 2015.Mr. Paschke noted staff was 121 recommending approval as conditioned. 122 Chair Boguszewski noted drive-through requests in the past had been specific to a 123 tenant, while this request was for approval prior to knowing who the tenant may be.Chair 124 Boguszewski questioned if staff was confident that zoning and permitted uses would 125 prevent a high-volume use, since there is yet no knowledge of a future tenant, which he 126 found similar to issuing a blank check; and questioned if sufficient safeguards were in 127 place to ensure the owner and occupant would be applicable. 128 From the standpoint of conditions as recommended and as part of the staff review for the 129 Design Review Committee (DRC), Mr. Paschke noted the conditions applied as such by 130 the City Engineer/Public Works Director during that discussion that would retain the 131 ability to not approve a future use if it was determined their impact (e.g. volume of 132 vehicles) proved detrimental to this site or current traffic conditions.Therefore, Mr. 133 Paschke opined it was staff’s finding that conditions would provide sufficient protections 134 for a future tenant. 135 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Paschke confirmed that the end use, when 136 determined, would trigger a review by staff to ensure that conformity and that use would 137 be approved or denied based on those findings at that time and prior to the specific 138 tenant signing a lease agreement and subsequent to the City Engineering reviewing 139 traffic generation models for that particular use and tenant.Mr. Paschke further clarified 140 that such a review would be part of the overall at which time a determination would be 141 made as to whether the proposed use was approved and prior to issuing a tenant 142 improvement permit. 143 Member Gitzen clarified, with agreement by Mr. Paschke, that the proposed 144 fencing/screening was conditioned only along the island area(s). 145 Member Bull expressed his concerns about the circulation plan as proposed off County 146 Road B-2 if several cars in that lane were queuingto the back of the building, creating a 147 situation where they would end up circling around the building that may cause issues; 148