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 9 <br />Rustad sought to clarify that the concern of the Commission was based on them not <br />403 <br />knowing who the tenant is and potential impacts. <br />404 <br />Chair Boguszewski responded affirmatively. <br />405 <br />Given the previous small use of J. Arthur adjacent to this site, Mr. Rustad opined that it <br />406 <br />provided a good idea of what type of tenant could occupy that 1,000 square footage. <br />407 <br />Recognizing concerns raised about stacking and headlights for adjacent neighbors, Mr. <br />408 <br />Rustad suggested approval be restricted and limiting options. Mr. Rustad opined it <br />409 <br />sounded like staff had enough built-in fail safes that not just any tenant would be <br />410 <br />approved. <br />411 <br />Mr. Rustad noted that, as an owner of the building since 2003, time was of the essence <br />412 <br />for this, and given the history of the building as a former sporting goods operation, now <br />413 <br />under ownership as a large wholesale sporting goods company operating out of <br />414 <br />Memphis, TN, noted that while currently still operating from the back of the building, it <br />415 <br />would be relocating. Mr. Rustad noted that the pending sale was impacting that situation <br />416 <br />and causing the push to move this forward now. Mr. Rustad sought Commission approval <br />417 <br />by assuring them of the applicant’s willingness to meet any future restrictions or <br />418 <br />conditions, and his recognition of neighbor concerns regarding lighting and the need for <br />419 <br />appropriate screening. <br />420 <br />Chair Boguszewski asked Mr. Rustad what he believed was his sense of urgency in <br />421 <br />having the approval in hand while seeking tenants versus reporting to them the status of <br />422 <br />the drive-through Conditional Use following the property. <br />423 <br />Member Murphy opined that, even if approval was delayed, with the project file open and <br />424 <br />paperwork already submitted, potential approval should be a quick turnaround. <br />425 <br />When doing a project this size, Mr. Rustad noted the significant amount of money being <br />426 <br />expended for the facelift and making a nicer curb appeal for the building. Mr. Rustad <br />427 <br />reviewed some of the planned improvements for this exterior façade; and the need to <br />428 <br />present to lenders potential possibilities as part of their proforma or use for each space. <br />429 <br />Mr. Rustad noted that this became personal on their part as well as financially necessary; <br />430 <br />and as long as restrictions are in place and approved, opined it would provide sufficient <br />431 <br />control for the City and staff to avoid tenants or uses that were not appropriate. Mr. <br />432 <br />Rustad opined that previous drive-through approvals by the Commission, such as at <br />433 <br />Caribou across from McDonald’s or near HarMar Mall in the past, were more at issue due <br />434 <br />to the location and size versus the limited potential of this location and size. <br />435 <br />At the risk of coming across irrationally, Member Bull clarified that his concerns were <br />436 <br />based on many different viewpoints but centered around the unknowns – whether fulfilled <br />437 <br />or not – and the uncertainty that a potential use may not address some of those <br />438 <br />unknowns; of great concern to him with the Conditional Use going with the property. <br />439 <br />Member Murphy noted even if granting a Conditional Use with a specific tenant, that <br />440 <br />tenant could potentially change in six months, with the future not always known and <br />441 <br />changing at any given point. <br />442 <br />Member Bull stated that as long as protections could be guaranteed to enforce <br />443 <br />restrictions, he was coming around to Member Murphy’s rationale. <br />444 <br />MOTION <br />445 <br />Member Murphy moved, seconded by Member Gitzen to recommend to the City <br />446 <br />Council approval of the proposed drive-through as a CONDITIONAL USE at 2425 <br />447 <br />Rice Street; based on the comments and findings contained the project report <br />448 <br />dated July 1, 2015; as conditioned in the staff report, <br />with Condition B (line 157) <br />449 <br />corrected to read “from” rather than “form;”and in line 164, Condition C be revised <br />450 <br />to read: “…headlights...and light emanating from other structures on the site <br />451 <br />related to drive-throughs…” <br />452 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.