2016-11-02_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Page 10 Amendment to the Motion 457 Ayes: 1 (Bull) 458 Nays: 6 459 Motion failed. 460 Original Motion 461 Ayes: 7 462 Nays: 0 463 Motion carried. 464 Chair Boguszewski noted that this item was scheduled to go before the City 465 Council at their November 28, 2016 meeting, allowing the property owner another 466 opportunity to express their concerns. 467 6. Public Hearings – New 468 a. PLANNING FILE 16-028 469 Pursuant to Table 1005-1 and Section 1009 of Roseville City Code, Request 470 by Wallack Management, LLC for consideration of a CONDITIONAL USE to 471 allow a Yoga Studio (leaning studio, health club or fitness center) at 1940- 472 1944 Lexington Avenue (legal description of property on file in the 473 Community Development Department) 474 Chair Boguszewski opened the public hearing for Planning File 160928 at 475 approximately 6:35 p.m. 476 City Planner Thomas Paschke briefly summarized this request as detailed in the 477 staff report of today’s date and for this currently vacant space. Mr. Paschke 478 advised that staff supported the Conditional Use request based on the two 479 conditions as outlined in lines 47 – 48; and included in the draft resolution as 480 presented. 481 With Mr. Paschke noting limited parking in this multi-tenant building, and the 482 Conditional Use carried in perpetuity with the property, Member Cunningham still 483 asked why staff insisted on limits to the class size. 484 Mr. Paschke advised that it was specific to sufficient parking concerns only, and 485 whether people shared rides, walked or drove separately to the site, staff still felt it 486 was appropriate to apply the condition. Mr. Paschke noted that, since the 487 Conditional Use went with the property, it wasn’t always possible for staff to 488 control the types of uses if allowed under city code; and with a potential for a 489 greater amount of students, parking could become a potential problem, and with 490 staff’s intent not to create such a situation, thus they were recommending capping 491 the class size to avoid parking issues. 492 Member Cunningham questioned other uses in the building and the intent; with 493 Mr. Paschke clarifying that the applicant was proposing one retail use in the same 494 building as a future use in addition to the Yoga class; with an existing office use 495 already in the building with three employees. Member Cunningham asked if the 496 other uses of the building matched up with the hours proposed for the fitness 497 studio. Mr. Paschke clarified that staff didn’t regulate regular office hours unless 498 outside city code; but had provided the information for the Commission specific to 499 this particular proposed use on this site. 500 Member Cunningham suggested there may be more students on weekends when 501 the office use isn’t as active and therefore also facilitating parking. 502 Member Gitzen calculated with Mr. Paschke the available spaces for each use 503 and for the entire site, and worst case scenarios for each use; with city code 504 addressing parking stalls per square footage of area to be used. 505 At the request of Member Bull, Mr. Paschke clarified line 27 of the staff report 506 addressing employees, noting staff didn’t regulate whether or not employees were 507