2014-07-09_PC_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning CommissionMeeting Minutes –Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Page 20 Member Murphy expressed similar questions to those voiced by Member Cunningham 966 related to the definition and frequency of seasonal permitting, questioning the rationale 967 for that, opining that few food truck operations would be happening in thewinter. 968 Member Cunningham questioned why not to allow operations of a food truck year round, 969 which would be her preference if the language were voted on tonight, and she would 970 support amending that portion (b.ii); and if adopted, she would strike the lastsentence of 971 that section, “Under no circumstances…,” unless rationale for including it could be given. 972 Member Boguszewski opined that this section was so new and had so many 973 ramifications, which maybe better defined from notes after tonight’s discussion.Until 974 then, Member Boguszewski stated that he would rather not vote on it tonight, but discuss 975 it fully and allow staff to return with responses to that discussion, along with inviting the 976 Community Development Director to attend the next meeting to provide his rationale in 977 suggesting some of the language. 978 Member Murphy concurred, noting that some of his questions were: why were food trucks 979 limited to five business days of operations; why were they only permitted in business 980 districts, when they may be appropriate to serving at a block party (e.g. National Night 981 Out) where a street was already blocked off for an event; or why could he not 982 commission a food truck to serve on a barricaded street at his discretion (e.g. private 983 graduations or anniversary parties)? 984 Since food trucks were not yet regulated by City Code, Mr. Paschke advised that they 985 could serve on a blocked off street, but from staff’s perspective it was preferable to keep 986 them in commercial versus residential areas.Mr. Paschke noted that the only time it 987 came into play is if in a residential neighborhood, as the intent was to only address 988 business districts and not revise other areas of code. 989 Member Murphy questioned why food trucks would remain unregulated in other districts 990 versus this zoning district, with Mr. Paschke responding that they were currently 991 unregulated anywhere in Roseville, and this would apply to Commercial and Business 992 Districts at this time, but may be revised in the future if needed to address Employment 993 Districts.Mr. Paschkeadvised that since this was the only section being addressed at 994 this time, the issue of food trucks in that district had come forward. 995 Member Cunningham clarified, and staff confirmed, that since the Property Performance 996 Standards were only being addressed for this District, a food truck could serve a 997 residential area. 998 In Section b.i specific to temporary permits, Member Murphy questioned the number of 999 temporary permits for one property address (e.g. Rosedale versus a smaller business 1000 site) and questioned how it would be determined who got to choose which food trucks 1001 and how many served one property. 1002 Mr. Paschke advised that language did not specify “first come, first served,” but remained 1003 open to how ever many food trucks the property owner (e.g. Rosedale)wanted to allow 1004 on their property; with food trucks permitted by address, but their number not limited 1005 under this proposed language. 1006 In Section 1005.07 CMU District. B.(page 9), Member Daire .Daire noted the requirement 1007 for each redevelopment within the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area to complete a 1008 “voluntary” EAW, and questioned the difference in “voluntary” and “required.” 1009 Member Boguszewski suggested striking “voluntary.” 1010 Mr. Paschke asked that “voluntary” be retained, and advised that the reason was that 1011 there were requirements and triggers in place under EQB laws that triggered an EAW; 1012 however there may never be development in the CMU District that triggered an EAW, 1013 therefore each development is required to do a voluntary environmental review and follow 1014 the guidelines of a formal EAW, a specific process.Mr. Paschke opined that this avoided 1015 ambiguities and developers know that they will be required to pursue this voluntary 1016