CC_Minutes_2016_0725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2016 Page 34 Etten moved, Roe seconded, approval of the draft Request for Proposals (RFP) and directing staff to issue the RFP, amended as follows: • Section C.1 Public Safetv, Pa�e S Strike this paragraph entirely • Section D. Public Enga�ement, Pa�e S Include a requirement and emphasis that consultants show their previous public engagement efforts informing this update; and that past Roseville- specific public engagement processes include a model similar to that of the Park Master Plan process, in addition to those listed (e.g. Imagine Roseville 2025). In other words, Mayor Roe asked that an emphasis be placed in that paragraph that this comprehensive plan update process be informed by pre- vious public engagement of the consultant and successful models in Rose- ville. • Section C.4. References, Pa�e 6 Review the need for specific references; but note the consultant will be eval- uated on their public engagements efforts in the pas� • Section E, Selection Criteria, Pa�e 9 Fourth bullet point from bottom, revise to read: "Ability to work as a team with City Council, advisory commissions and committees, [�J staff, [the public, and in geographic areas beyond RosevilleJ Roll Call Ayes: McGehee, Willmus, Etten, and Roe. Nays: Laliberte. Motion carried. d. Consider a Conditional Use (CU) to Allow a Drive-through at 2425 Rice Street (PF15-0012) City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed this request brought before the Planning Commission in July of 2015 for approval of a proposed drive-through as a Condi- tional Use at 2425 Rice Street, with modified conditions. Mr. Paschke advised that soon after, with some concerns raised before City Council approval as rec- ommended by the Commission, the applicant was asked to defer the drive-through until a tenant was found for the corner parcel and the actual use of the facility could be further analyzed by the city's planning and engineering staff specific to parking, traffic flow on site, and onto city and county streets. Mr. Paschke noted those concerns were with circulation of the site itself depending on drive-through configuration and potential traffic stacking. Since that time, Mr. Paschke advised that the applicants had worked toward and found a tenant for that space; and staff had subsequently analyzed modifications to the drive-through as presented tonight; and addressed in recommended Condi- tion D of the draft resolution (Attachment E) to provide signage, striping and curbing of the drive-through beyond general and specific criteria previously re- viewed as part of a drive-through use as a CU. Mr. Paschke noted additional mit-