My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-07-01_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-07-01_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/3/2015 11:52:35 AM
Creation date
9/3/2015 11:52:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/1/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, July 1, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />conditional use for a drive-through at this time was to allow them a larger pool of tenant <br />201 <br />options moving forward. As noted in staff’s findings in the report, Mr. Jensen opined that <br />202 <br />it seemed an appropriate space for which to seek such a potential use. Mr. Jensen <br />203 <br />further stated that, at the discretion of the Commission and/or staff, he had no problem <br />204 <br />bringing a future tenant forward for approval as a potential occupant of the building and <br />205 <br />user of the drive-through. <br />206 <br />Member Boguszewski asked if it was the intent of the applicant to build the drive-through <br />207 <br />now or merely obtain approval for a future tenant and construct it at that time or post- <br />208 <br />approval. <br />209 <br />Mr. Jensen noted a future tenant may not need that option, but his hope was to see such <br />210 <br />a use and related drive-through as a tenant, since there weren’t many such small <br />211 <br />business options along Rice Street at this time. In essence, Mr. Jensen advised that he <br />212 <br />was seeking approval before a tenant became known to allow for such an option, without <br />213 <br />the unknown if such a use may or may not be approved at the time such a tenant was <br />214 <br />available. <br />215 <br />Mr. Rustad noted that construction would start immediately, according to plan, for Sun <br />216 <br />Control’s occupancy of the largest portion of the building, and after or during that same <br />217 <br />time, three additional spaces may be leased by other unknown tenants. Other than for <br />218 <br />the actual drive-through itself, Mr. Rustad advised that all other construction as indicated <br />219 <br />in the plan would be completed during the initial phase of construction, including <br />220 <br />landscaping and curb cuts with Mr. Jensen and his partner seeking tenants parallel to <br />221 <br />that construction. Having owned the building since 2003, Mr. Rustad advised that he was <br />222 <br />well-aware of the demographics of the area and traffic flow; and opined that the proposed <br />223 <br />plan was usable and would complement that neighborhood without any negative impacts. <br />224 <br />In his review of the site plan, Member Daire opined that the space to the north of the <br />225 <br />building suggested a better location for a drive-through rather than the south side; and <br />226 <br />asked if the applicant had considered that option and if so, why they had chosen the <br />227 <br />south side instead. <br />228 <br />Mr. Rustad responded that, since this site shared ingress/egress with the property <br />229 <br />immediately to the north, and pick-up from the drive-through from the driver side of a <br />230 <br />vehicle, the concern was that staging of vehicles may back up into that adjacent property <br />231 <br />or even into Rice Street if located on the north side, creating more problems than as <br />232 <br />proposed on the south side. <br />233 <br />Member Daire sought further clarification regarding the grading of the site and potential <br />234 <br />conflict with existing doors and the drive-through. <br />235 <br />Mr. Rustad clarified that the SE corner was at higher grade at the SE corner but not <br />236 <br />significant; and the doors in question were considered service doors, with one required <br />237 <br />as an additional exit for one unit, but not used for daily entry as required by code. <br />238 <br />Member Bull thanked the applicants for their participation in the Roseville business <br />239 <br />community; and asked if they understood that a potential use may not meet expectations <br />240 <br />and may not be approved. <br />241 <br />Mr. Jensen responded that he understood concerns as raised by the Commission; and <br />242 <br />expressed his confidence that a potential tenant could be found, similar to the previous <br />243 <br />area coffee shop (J. Arthur). <br />244 <br />Mr. Rustad concurred, opining that the smaller spaces of approximately 1,000 square <br />245 <br />feet, were more attractive to a smaller use; with only the end cap available and subject to <br />246 <br />limited smaller operations. <br />247 <br />Mr. Jensen noted their commercial business involved window tinting for residential, <br />248 <br />commercial and vehicle applications; and at night their work vans would be stored in the <br />249 <br />garage, with approximately 60% of their residential and commercial business off-site, with <br />250 <br />those vans leaving at 8:00 a.m. and not returning until approximately 4:30 p.m. As an <br />251 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.