CC 03-10-1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES OF REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Page three March 10, 1975 Ramsey County CETA Subgrantee Agreement Lynden referred Council to his letter of t~ar,:h 4, 1975, and to McNlesh's memo of March 5, 1975, noting that the memorandum raises the question of meshing the CETA Agreement with collective bargaining agreement, If proposed employee is In a position covered by the Union. After discussion, Crichton moved, seconded by Feyerelsen, that Councl I approve the agreement with CETA for one Park Maintenance employee at $4.25/hr. Motion carried unanimously. Shade Tree Disease Control Ordinance Matter deferred to March 17, 1975 Counci I Meeting. . Highway Easement Crichton noted that the land wIthin the highway easement, dividing the two Cummings property parcels, is not owned by the Highway Depart- ment, but is strIctly an easement; the legal description, therefore, of the Cummings oroperty(s) should read, "SUbJect to highway ease- ments" Instead of "abutting highway easements" as descrIbed In letter to the HIghway Department (3/11/75). . REPORT OF VILLAGE TREASURER RICHARD O'KELLY Investments Treasu rer 0' Ke I I y' reported tha t $158,000 was invested for 6 month s at 6.40% on February 26, J975, and that $100,000 was invested for 6 months at 6.50% on March 6, 1975. Feyereisen moved, seconded by CrIchton, that Council ratify the In- vestments as reported. MotIon carried unanImously. REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER RICHARD FREDLUND Case No. 74-17, Building Permit - McDonald's Corporation Planner Fredlund described the site location for a proposed McDonald's Corporation operation In the northeast quadrant of HIghway 51 and County Road E, an~ discussed the Planning Commission's reylew of the proposal at Its Jast meeting. Fredlund reported that the Commission deliberat~ On whether the pro- posed operation Is a "drive-in restaurant", therefore requirIng a Special Use Permit, or a "restaurant", which would not require a Special Use Permit, and secondly considered the appl icatlon on Its own merit as to whether it w~s a proper site for a McDonald's operation. Fredlund noted that toe Planning Commission considered a great deal of Information presented by McDonald's Corporation and, In their find- Ing of faCT as whether the operation is a"tlrive-ln restauran1"or''res- tauran~~ the Commission's determination was that it was, In fact, a "drive-in restaurant" as opposed to a ~It-down restauranf~ and would, therefore, require a Special Use Permit. Fredlund cited the following facts on which the Commission based its determination: . I. Food Is basically pre-packaged, and 2. All food Is packaged in the same manner, whether eaten at the sit-down area or carried outside. 3. Customer is asked whether he is going to eat In the restaurant or outside. 4. It is apparent that food Is expected to be eaten In cars and/ or on the premises ou~side the building; containers are pro- vided on the premises, outside the building itself, Indicating that this is a faci Ilty where one can eat in his car; there- fore it Is a drive-In restaurant. The second consideration was to look at the site and to determine whether, followIng the requirements of the Special Use Permit, this site, in fact, Is a good site for a drive-in restaurant. -3-