My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015 Agendas
>
2015-08-05_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/4/2015 8:54:01 AM
Creation date
8/4/2015 8:53:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
51
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular Planning CommissionMeeting <br />Minutes –Wednesday, July 1, 2015 <br />Page 4 <br />and also the location of the garage doors in the SW corner that may interfere with internal <br />149 <br />traffic flow and use of the garage doors.Member Bull questioned if that had entered into <br />150 <br />staff’s analysis. <br />151 <br />Mr. Paschke responded that staff did not find it a negative situation for vehicles to circle <br />152 <br />the building, as the site itself was designed to operate and flow consistently with how <br />153 <br />vehicles would typically move through this particular site and work with the site <br />154 <br />immediately to the north.Mr. Paschke clarified that the use itself would be utilizing those <br />155 <br />garage doors, and vehicles would not be parked there all day long, only perhaps for a few <br />156 <br />minutes before pulled inside the building.While some control would obviously be <br />157 <br />required, Mr. Paschke noted that that main business, window tinting for vehicles, <br />158 <br />buildings and other applications, should not conflict with the anticipated peak times for a <br />159 <br />drive-through use; and would need to be resolved by the building tenants and owner; <br />160 <br />which was clearly understood by the owner and self-imposed on them in requesting this <br />161 <br />drive-through lane.Mr. Paschke further clarified that there was not a zoning issue that <br />162 <br />was proving problematic, and the owner was well aware of site issues moving forward. <br />163 <br />At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke suggested typical peak hours for drive- <br />164 <br />throughs for such a proposed use as anticipated would need to be addressed by the <br />165 <br />building owner and tenants.Mr. Paschke noted he was aware of the concerns expressed <br />166 <br />by Chair Boguszewski in not knowing a definite tenant at this time; but was also <br />167 <br />cognizant of the applicant’s desire to have this drive-through available to market and <br />168 <br />attract other potential tenants to the site. <br />169 <br />Member Cunningham asked staff to provide examples of potential uses that would <br />170 <br />involve a lower-impact drive-through versus one identified as high-impact. <br />171 <br />Mr. Paschke responded that a McDonald’s type use, requiring more square footage, <br />172 <br />would be one example of a high-impact use versus a no-name coffee shop.Mr. Paschke <br />173 <br />advised that this would be part of staff’s analysis in the future as a proposed use came <br />174 <br />forward. <br />175 <br />Member Daire sought clarification, confirmed by Mr. Paschke,that the proposed floor <br />176 <br />plan provided for Sun Control occupying Units Suites 100, 300 and 400, along with the <br />177 <br />bays in back, with only one production area potentially leasable.Member Daire <br />178 <br />questioned if it was conceivable based on discussions to date, for the potential <br />179 <br />combination of Suites 300 and 400 for potential use that could also avail itself of the <br />180 <br />drive-through. <br />181 <br />Mr. Paschke responded affirmatively, theoretically, depending on the particular use and <br />182 <br />conditions applied to that use.Mr. Paschke advised that a proposed use may not be <br />183 <br />supported by staff, as indicated in discussions previously. <br />184 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke confirmed that Sun Control would need to <br />185 <br />seek approval by City staff for any tenants intended to locate in this multi-tenant facility. <br />186 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Mr. Paschke clarified that most multi-tenant buildings <br />187 <br />were required to seek approval for uses, and whether permittedor not permitted, or <br />188 <br />permitted with a Conditional use permit, as established by City Code. <br />189 <br />Applicant RepresentativeTodd Jensen, 2604 Rice Street <br />190 <br />Mr. Jensen advised that he was the co-owner of Sun Control, which his father had owned <br />191 <br />for over 35 years, having leased several other spaces in Roseville, most currently at 2604 <br />192 <br />Rice Street. <br />193 <br />Dave Rustad, 329 S Owasso Blvd. <br />194 <br />Mr. Rustad advised that he was the current building ownerat 2425 Rice Street, and Mr. <br />195 <br />Jensen and his partner Josh, intended to purchase the building from him and give it a <br />196 <br />facelift, with the intent that good tenants would bring life back into the building and area, <br />197 <br />providing positive impacts for Rice Street. <br />198 <br />Specific to the drive-through, Mr. Jensen advised that they envisioned a small, family-run <br />199 <br />business (e.g. small sandwich deli or coffee shop), and their reason for seeking this <br />200 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.