Roseville staff to draft zoning change allowing staff approval of some restaurant parking reductions

Planning staff told the City of Roseville Planning Commission on March 13 that they will draft a zoning ordinance amendment to allow staff — rather than the Planning Commission — to approve certain parking reductions for eating and drinking establishments.

Planning Manager Greg Bitter told the commission the change would be limited to parking reductions for restaurants and similar uses and would mirror existing administrative permits used for other project types. “Any staff approval…we still would continue to send out the notices to everybody within 300 feet and that includes property owners and tenants,” Bitter said, adding that members of the public would retain the right to request a hearing within 10 days of notice so the item would be “bumped up to the planning commission.”

The proposal traces to a 2008 municipal code decision that required Planning Commission review of parking reductions tied to eating and drinking establishments after parking impacts at some shopping centers. Bitter said staff has tracked reductions since 2014 and that most have generated little public testimony; the Pinkberry parking reduction approved on the consent calendar earlier in the meeting was cited as an example of a small request that required a full commission hearing.

Commissioners asked staff to return with draft language that includes clear thresholds or limits on the amount of reduction that staff could approve administratively. “If it’s 10% or more it automatically comes here,” said one commissioner advocating for a numeric threshold, adding that a fixed threshold would protect both residents and the commission. Bitter responded that staff plans to evaluate thresholds (percentage vs. number of spaces) and on-site signage requirements as part of the ordinance update.

Public commenters were split. Jennifer Chapman of 707 Sunrise urged the commission to remain involved and cautioned against giving staff unchecked discretion, saying her parking counts at a nearby medical building showed lower demand than the Institute of Traffic Engineers’ tables would predict: “According to the square footage…that establishment…should need 31 spaces. I have been counting cars there for a month and a half. The most I ever saw…was 20. The average…is 9.” Another resident who identified themself only as Brander said post‑pandemic business patterns (more takeout) support reducing required parking.

Bitter emphasized that applicants for parking reductions already must provide detailed operational data and that staff would require the same evidence whether a request is approved administratively or by the commission. He also noted staff can escalate any item to the Planning Commission where special circumstances exist.

Next steps: staff will prepare draft ordinance language for the annual zoning ordinance amendment cycle that would codify administrative approval for certain parking reductions, propose thresholds and address on-site signage; the commission will have a formal opportunity to make a recommendation when that draft returns.