CC 02-10-1975 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

....oIl , Minutes of Regular Counci I Meeting Page four February 10, 1975 . Crichton moved, seconded by Feyereisen, that the Council request McDon- ald's to proceed as though it were applying for a Special Use Permit, which would Include a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission would subsequently report its recommenda- tions to the Councl I and the Council would then consider the merits of the McDonald~ proposed establishment. This procedure would not constitute a waiver of McDonald's rights nor the rights of the City. Neither position would be compromised. In discussion of the motion, it was noted that the following procedure would be taken: i. McDonald~ would appear before the PI~nning Commission at a Public Hearing at its next meeting (March 4, 1975) for review of Its plans and to answer questions. 2. Planning Commission would make its determinations and recom- mendations to the Council at the next Council meeting follow- Ing the Planning Commission Meeting (March 10, 1975>. 3. Counci I would consider the appl ication at that time on Its merits -- first determining whether or not the establishment was a "restaur~nt". Wingert expressed concern as to why McDonald~ would be given special treatment, not granted to anyone else. Sexton said that McDonalds cannot stop customers from eating in their cars -- customers do have that option, and there is no way McDonalds can control It. He did indicate, In response to a questIon from Lynden, however, that the prepackaging of the food, which makes it portable, doas facilitate customers taking food to their cars, and away from the premises. Woodburn said his survey figures, taken at the Roseville store last summer, indicated 48% of customers, between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., ate i n the b u I I din g . Feyerelsen said his problem was not what McDonald~ was, but what It was now, and what it would be coming to. He indicated a desire to look at the plan at this proposed location In Arden Hills -- not what McDonald's was before, or elsewhere. Mr. Berg'stated that McDonald's was a restaurant, and, therefore, the corre.ct way to proceed would be to fol low procedure for a restaurant. He said that McDonald\swas not ashamed of its mode of operation, but, in fact, proud of its operation,. that it ha4 gone to court many times to defend Its operation as a restau,-ant, and had won many times. He said that McDona I d's was not ave rse. to show i ng peop I e exact I y wh<jt McDonald's was, and indicated that, regardless of the ordinance, they have .a Iways procElil:led as a 'res'caurantr.. . Woodburn stated that the Planning Commission had seen the site plan, the 'interior of the store proposed in Arden Hi lis, three signs proposed (two of which were in violation of our ordinance); asked what additional information ~Io.u'd be presented to the Planning Commission. Berg contended that these plans had not been discussed with the Planning Commission; the application was denied because of incorrect application procedure. Feyereisen asked if McDonald~ was agreeable now to going through the Public Hearing. Mr. Sexton said that was correct, and that the land- scape plan had been re-drafted, and would be presented at that time. Wingert said if the Council followed the procedure proposed, it would require notifying residents of the hearing; therefore, an ownership re- port would be needed and a notice of hearing published in the paper. He asked if, after Council received the recommendation from the Planning Commission re restaurant vs. drive-in, would McDonalds have to re-apply for a Special Use Permit if the determination is that establishment is a drive-in, which would require another public hearing. -4-