2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 19 PROJECT FILE 0026, Twin Lakes Re-Envisioning c. 917 Request by the Community Development Department for consideration of TEXT 918 AMENDMENTS to the Zoning Ordinance, specifically Section 1001.10 (Definitions) 919 Table 1005-1, Section 1005-07 (Community Mixed Use District), Chapter 1009.02 920 (Conditional Use), and Chapter 1011.12 (Additional Standards for Specific Uses in 921 All Districts) 922 At the request of Member Boguszewski to split the motion, Mr. Paschke advised that this 923 would not be prudent, as one could not go forward with approval of the other portion. 924 Chair Gisselquist opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 14-009 at 9:13p.m. 925 City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed the various components of the requested action 926 for proposed text amendments, as detailed in the staff report dated June 4, 2014. 927 Beyond the staff report, Mr. Paschke noted that staff had intended to get the other 928 regulating plans developed sooner rather than later, but for one reason or another, they 929 had been delayed for over two years, awaiting hashing out details, subsequent to a 930 request by the City Council to eliminate regulating plans in their entirety. 931 At the request of Member Cunningham, Mr. Paschke advised that the intent for food truck 932 language would be for them to operate for five consecutive businesses, to facilitate some 933 broad allowances at first to determine how things worked, out, with additional 934 amendments possibly necessary after that realistic use.Mr. Paschke clarified that this 935 would evolve into licensing versus permitting, and potentially more restrictions similar to 936 those in place in Minneapolis, St. Paul and other suburbs, but not evident as problematic 937 in Roseville at this time. 938 Member Cunningham expressed some concern related to State Fair time and 939 advantages for food trucks to park in busier park and ride facilities around the community; 940 but would those trucks have to take a break between operating for five consecutive days 941 during the entire State Fair run as well? Mr. Paschke responded that staff had fielded no 942 requests to-date for food trucks during Fair time, but it was a good point to consider: how 943 long to operate at one time and how long of a span should there be between requested 944 permits. 945 Also related to food trucks, Member Cunningham questioned the difference in “seasonal” 946 and “temporary” and under what circumstances they applied, or how the determination 947 had been made related tono more than two seasons in a calendar year. 948 Mr. Lloyd advised that the distinction between the two is thata person would request an 949 additional permit under temporary status, rather than a longer-term seasonal permit, 950 similar to a vending permit. 951 At the request of Member Boguszewski regarding realities of spring/summer and/or 952 fall/winter seasonal permits and rationale for them, Mr. Lloyd responded that he couldn’t 953 explain why food trucks preferred operating seasonally were differentiated for shorter 954 terms, but appeared to be different than a temporary use. Mr. Lloyd advised that the 955 author of this section was the current Community Development Director. 956 Member Boguszewski opined that, if this section was going to become part of code, there 957 was no need to make it overly restrictive to their operations. 958 Chair Gisselquist opined that the language was probably modeled after other community 959 ordinances, and that language probably strongly lobbied for by restaurants to protect their 960 interests. 961 Member Boguszewski questioned if he had a food truck on his property, could it be 962 located on his lawn?Mr. Paschke responded that the standard is that it not be located on 963 a lawn, consistent with other such items throughout code, including not disrupting flow or 964 impeding customer traffic. 965