My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_0507
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_0507
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/24/2018 9:35:07 AM
Creation date
5/24/2018 9:35:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Contracts/Agreements
Agreement/Contract Type
Other
Contracts/Agreements - Department
Council
Purpose/Title
May 7, 2018 City Council Minutes
Council Approval Date
5/21/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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, May 7, 2018 <br /> Page 8 <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated it is also important to know where a future poten- <br /> tial different user down the road will have parking. <br /> Mayor Roe asked about parking agreements with other tenants in the mall. He <br /> wondered if that is a standard the Council has not asked other tenants to meet. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted he exchanged emails earlier today with Mr. Paschke <br /> about parking for other businesses such as Staples, Barnes &Noble and Michaels. <br /> He asked if that is related to what Councilmember Willmus is questioning. <br /> Mr. Paschke those agreements only specify there are X number of stalls. It is not <br /> an agreement specifying which actual spaces. HarMar management does not <br /> have specific agreements with other tenants for signed and distinct parking within <br /> parking areas within the City. <br /> Councilmember Willmus asked about Hamline Shopping Center. He recalled that <br /> the agreement was with the ownership of the office building and ownership of the <br /> mall. It was a cross-parking agreement. <br /> Mr. Paschke stated a cross-parking agreement is different than tenant parking. <br /> City Attorney Gaughan reminded that the Council is considering a CUP for a <br /> drive-through, not for customers who are parking. A conditional use must have <br /> conditions that bear some relation specific to the actual operation. He also noted <br /> that the staff report indicates the City action deadline was extended on March <br /> 20`h. There needs to be clarification on how that extension was accomplished, and <br /> then the applicants need to be asked for consent for a further extension if the <br /> Council is not going to take action tonight. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte stated in the past she has been supportive of drive- <br /> throughs in the City. She has no reason to oppose this. The restriping of the <br /> parking lot is helpful for a problem parking lot. Putting a structure in the middle <br /> of this will help guide where people walk. She lives in the area, and it is very <br /> congested and is difficult to navigate. But she does not know of a better area in <br /> the City for a location. <br /> Councilmember Etten commented he is concerned about the flow of human be- <br /> ings, and the drive-through exacerbates that. He would include a condition that <br /> cements what the property's architect indicated, namely, a wider sidewalk. With <br /> some appropriate actions in the parking lot, it can be at least as safe as it is now. <br /> Mayor Roe asked whether any sidewalk put in these days has to meet ADA re- <br /> quirements. <br /> Mr. Paschke noted any sidewalk put in or modified must be ADA compliant. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.