My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-09-17_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2015
>
2015-09-17_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/18/2016 11:57:00 AM
Creation date
5/18/2016 11:56:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Special Planning Commission Meeting <br />Minutes – Wednesday, September 17, 2015 <br />Page 5 <br />Member Cunningham sated that this seemed to represent a broad use, including urgent care with <br />202 <br />extended hours versus a regular clinic open during regular business hours. Therefore, Member <br />203 <br />Cunningham suggested making it CU knowing that the use would typically be approved, but if a <br />204 <br />facility with extended hours, CU would allow additional conditions to apply. <br />205 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted the recent speculative drive-through use coming before the Planning Commission <br />206 <br />in the recent past, and recognized that without knowing the actual user, a new user could come in <br />207 <br />if the approval was already in existence; and noted that unless something specific was <br />208 <br />conditioned in the CU prohibiting that type of use, it may not remain for the long-term as originally <br />209 <br />intended or permitted. <br />210 <br />Member Cunningham noted that, by allowing the use through as C, it also addressed changing <br />211 <br />uses (e.g. from a regular doctor’s office subsequently closing and then open to the potential for <br />212 <br />an urgent care use with extended hours). <br />213 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested making the hours of operation a condition for approval. <br />214 <br />Mr. Bilotta noted that there was no current definition for “urgent care,” and if that was the issue, <br />215 <br />suggested providing that definition versus putting in restrictions if that was the intent of the <br />216 <br />Commission. Mr. Bilotta noted that this use was coming into a prominence not seen before, and <br />217 <br />as an example used the current urgent care on County Road B-2 operating as an office while the <br />218 <br />recently constructed urgent care in Vadnais Heights operating totally differently. <br />219 <br />Chair Boguszewski asked if having a separate line use for “urgent care/after hours care” would <br />220 <br />include free-standing emergency care uses as well. <br />221 <br />Mr. Paschke noted consideration being given to extended hours for retail uses and how best to <br />222 <br />control those; and questioned if that that could or should also apply in this scenario. Also, Mr. <br />223 <br />Paschke noted that the Twin Lakes Medical facility at Fairview Avenue and County Road C <br />224 <br />already had an urgent care; and as is currently stands, would therefore apply to CMU and NB <br />225 <br />designated zoning districts as a P use, which could perhaps carry through for that district as well. <br />226 <br />Chair Boguszewski questioned if this applied to CMU-1, would it affect the existing Twin Lakes <br />227 <br />Medical facility by default. <br />228 <br />Mr. Lloyd noted the proposal was to bring those designations out in the land use table, with <br />229 <br />recommendations from Member Stellmach made at the last meeting to rephrase text in Section f <br />230 <br />(Table of Allowed Uses), Items 6. a, b, and c (page 16 of 18 in RPCA Attachment C) to limit <br />231 <br />business hours as applicable and with some consistency. <br />232 <br />From the City Council’s past discussions, Mr. Bilotta noted considerations of operations between <br />233 <br />the hours of 4:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. and what that meant to specific businesses. For example, <br />234 <br />Mr. Bilotta questioned if that referred to customers only coming and going, or if it was a software <br />235 <br />company whose employees worked late or early morning hours, how would it affect them. <br />236 <br />Therefore, Mr. Bilotta advised that staff had proposed the text as presented on page 16 of the <br />237 <br />RPCA to address those extended hour activities that would be disruptive and those that may not <br />238 <br />be disruptive. <br />239 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested concurrence by the Commission with the City Council and staff on <br />240 <br />those differentials. <br />241 <br />Member Bull spoke to bakery uses and their employees and/or customers as another example, <br />242 <br />with many of their employees coming in at 4:00 a.m. or before to start baking and prepare for a <br />243 <br />6:00 a.m. opening to customers. Member Bull questioned if that would be a P use in a CUM-1 <br />244 <br />designation. <br />245 <br />Mr. Bilotta suggested making that more in line with other text related to customers. <br />246 <br />As with other businesses of a similar nature, Mr. Paschke noted the difficulty in regulating what <br />247 <br />occurs inside in the building no matter their use, if not doing external business during all the hours <br />248 <br />they’re in the building. <br />249 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.