My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2017_1106
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2017
>
CC_Minutes_2017_1106
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/13/2017 2:02:53 PM
Creation date
12/13/2017 2:01:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
11/6/2017
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,November 6, 2017 <br /> Page 23 <br /> ment). However, Councilmember McGehee agreed that she didn't want to en- <br /> courage the restaurant as a destination point, with others driving in from other <br /> communities creating traffic congestion issues. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated that he was fine with Restaurant/Fast Food as a <br /> conditional use and Restaurant/Traditional as a permitted use. <br /> City Planner Paschke noted that a number of restaurants/fast food" could be ex- <br /> cluded if the stipulation was that drive-throughs were not permitted, and based <br /> their uses predominantly dependent on that amenity. <br /> In conclusion, for this specific PUD, without objection, it was determined that <br /> Restaurant/Fast Food (No Drive-through) and Restaurant/Traditional were both <br /> permitted. <br /> Without objection, staff was directed to revise the statement (page 2, lines 61-70) <br /> to serve as a more generic introductory statement to the new table. <br /> Design Standards <br /> Without objection, no changes to design standards were recommended. <br /> General Comments <br /> Mayor Roe asked if there was a mechanism to amend the PUD between the city <br /> and new property owners and/or developers, since many of the original parties are <br /> no longer in play. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan clarified that the mechanism may take the form of a new <br /> PUD; but asked for time to research the best process since the existing PUD was <br /> crafted during the time previous iterations of city code were in place and which <br /> had subsequently gone away, including creation of a new PUD chapter of city <br /> code. <br /> Mayor Roe questioned if it was conceivable to cancel the existing PUD and create <br /> the Centre Point Zoning District or Overlay District, similar as noted by Coun- <br /> cilmember Etten to that of the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. <br /> City Planner Paschke advised that it would be slightly different from a process <br /> point of view. <br /> Mayor Roe agreed that the mechanism didn't matter too much to the City Council <br /> as long as the end results were achieved. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated that the timing was critical to him so the existing <br /> PUD wasn't cancelled with nothing in its place. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.