Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, March 26, 2007 <br />Page 25 <br /> <br />a need to add a turn lane to accommodate traffic, and increasing difficulties <br />in navigating access points; and incompatibility of the proposed use with <br />contiguous properties; in addition to noise pollution from garbage collection. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough concurred with the comments of and findings by <br />Councilmember Ihlan, and spoke in support of the motion. <br /> <br />Councilmember Roe spoke in opposition of the motion to deny the request; <br />opining that relative impacts and balance issues needed to be considered <br />with CUP's; and while there were impacts related to the proposed project, <br />further opining that none of the arguments were strong enough to provide <br />criteria for denial. Councilmember Roe, in addressing the concerns of the <br />neighbors and taking them seriously, opined that he was sufficiently satisfied <br />with the proposed screening, site plan traffic flow, garbage monitoring and <br />dumpster screening, and other conditions applied to support approval of the <br />CUP. Councilmember Roe observed that the City of Roseville, unlike the <br />City of Falcon Heights and their recent ordinance adoption preventing drive- <br />thru's, already had a number of drive-thru businesses, and opined that deny- <br />ing the CUP on that basis would not be an appropriate decision. Council- <br />member Roe further observed that traffic was an issue already, whether or <br />not the drive-thru was approved. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust clarified several issues, observing that the "proximity" <br />of the residential neighborhood was actually across the street from the pro- <br />posed commercial property, and didn't represent the first or only such drive- <br />thru approved for a commercial property adjacent to residential properties; <br />and questioned what the actual issue was. Councilmember Pust noted that <br />she had been the one to initially raise the issue about the daycare, after hear- <br />ing citizen concerns, and was willing to hear their opinion. Councilmember <br />Pust noted the written comment provided by the Director of the daycare fa- <br />cility, speaking in support of the project; opining that their personnel would <br />presumably have the best interests of the children in mind. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust questioned the validity of quantifying data regarding <br />the stacking of vehicles, and sought City Attorney opinion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson stated that, in past case law and findings of fact in <br />court decisions, with five such cases available for Council review at their <br />discretion, the court only considered legally sufficient evidence in the re- <br />