Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />Roseville City Council <br />Minutes of 1/29/07 Pg 29 of 38 <br />Discussion ensued regarding previous proposals; code requirements for <br />properties abutting a public road; city enforcement for public roads; and <br />emergency vehicle access. <br /> <br />Councilmembers Kough and Ihlan spoke in opposition to the amendment. <br /> <br />Roll Call [Amendment) <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />Roe moved an additional condition that for the City's acceptance of the pub- <br />lic cul-de-sac, that all four properties front the cul-de-sac. The motion failed <br />for lack of a second. <br />Roll Call [Original Motion) <br />Ayes: Roe; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough and Ihlan. <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />14. Consider Request by WCL Associates to Rezone 2216 County Road D <br />and to receive a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Class II Restaurant <br />with Drive-Thru Facilities (PF07-001) <br />Community Development Director John Stark presented the request ofWCL <br />Associates for approval of rezoning the property at 2216 County Road D <br />from B-4 (Retail Office Service District) to B-3 (General Business District) <br />to make it consistent with Section 1015 of City Code; and for approval of a <br />Conditional Use Permit to allow for construction of a Class II restaurant <br />(fast food convenience) to accommodate a drive-thru facility. <br /> <br />Staff recommended approval, noting Planning Commissioner recommenda- <br />tion for approval on a 6/0 vote at their January meeting, and based on the <br />staff report dated January 29,2007. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark questioned the status of the 60-day approval period; which may be <br />moot depending on the outcome of the Council's decision. Mr. Stark de- <br />tailed conditions in Section 6 of the staff report. <br /> <br />Discussion included implications of the 60-day approval period; with the <br />City Attorney not referencing the 60-day ruling and processing of the re- <br />quest as outlined. <br />