My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_1022
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_1022
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2018 10:37:16 AM
Creation date
11/30/2018 10:37:12 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/22/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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 City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, October 22, 2018 <br /> Page 16 <br /> Councilmember Willmus asked what the City currently has in place for seating <br /> requirements for a sit-down restaurant. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated all of the City restaurants are based on seats, which is one <br /> space for every three seats. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated one of the items the Planning Commission had a <br /> concern with was counting outdoor seating or not and when this states one space <br /> for every four seats in a tap room tasting room, would that include any outdoor <br /> seating as part of the business. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated for this item it does not because that was an item the Planning <br /> Commission rejected as part of what staff was a proponent of. Staff believes that <br /> moving forward, even with the current restaurant designs, there is probably a need <br /> to look at that and to determine whether or not there needs to be an increase in <br /> parking because there are more outdoor seating areas and that does create, during <br /> six or months during the year, additional pressure on parking. This item is com- <br /> ing before the Council as a Code modification. Staff felt that was an appropriate <br /> time to introduce a parking requirement for patios, so it was in the recommenda- <br /> tion initially,but it was recommended that be removed. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated on the topic of cocktail rooms, he thought the City <br /> should match the State Statutes to clarify what the City is doing. He noted in Ta- <br /> ble 1006-1, Section 5, brewery is listed as conditional and he wondered if that was <br /> not permitted before in the Zoning code or was it not a use at all before. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated none of the items were previous uses in the City Zoning Code. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated looking at Table 1005-1, Section 3, under neighbor- <br /> hood business,brew pub was originally conditional and moved to permitted. <br /> Mr. Paschke believed in September the recommendation was not permitted for <br /> microbrewery. <br /> Mayor Roe thought when it came to the Planning Commission, it was not permit- <br /> ted in neighborhood business and the Planning Commission changed it. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated that was correct. He thought brew pub was permitted because <br /> that is looked at in terms of a restaurant. <br /> Mayor Roe stated on Table 4 of the same section, he was looking at CMU2 versus <br /> CMU1 and the other categories and why these various uses might be conditional <br /> or permitted in CMU1, which is the least intense, most restrictive, but not in <br /> CMU2. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.