My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2019_0513
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2019
>
CC_Minutes_2019_0513
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/4/2019 2:20:31 PM
Creation date
6/4/2019 2:20:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
5/13/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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 13, 2019 <br /> Page 9 <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated the reason he was curious about it is does it run <br /> with the land. How it is recorded against the property. <br /> Ms. Gundlach replied a special use permit is the same as a conditional use permit <br /> and is recorded against the property, runs with the land, not with the user. <br /> Councilmember Willmus asked from staff's perspective, is there a tool that could <br /> be brought forward and implement that is specific to the particular use that sought <br /> the drive through window. He wondered how this could be tied to a specific use <br /> that sought the permit. <br /> Mr. Paschke replied there are very few uses that are actually that similar that per- <br /> haps may be able to follow along with the conditions that are there. He used <br /> Mudslingers as an example of a small, special use. Each one is unique and if <br /> someone else came in because the business closed and that person wanted to start <br /> a different business, it would need to be reviewed prior to supporting the new <br /> business whether or not that business was able to achieve compliance with the <br /> conditions that were placed on that project. The City would require them to go <br /> through their separate and own distinct conditional use if those compliances can- <br /> not be achieved because it is not the same. <br /> Ms. Gundlach stated her recommendation would be with each one that comes be- <br /> fore the Council, try to identify what the Council concern is and what the negative <br /> impact is and specifically write a condition to address that, regardless of who the <br /> user is. <br /> Mr. Paschke thought the goal throughout this is to try to analyze this accordingly <br /> and set the conditions to be set up as best as the future can be foreseen. <br /> Councilmember Etten wondered if a way to get at some of that is to look at <br /> somewhere along the lines of the following: "If the approved pattern is changed, <br /> there is an intensification of use or conditions on the property change in a way <br /> that impacts pedestrian, bicycle or auto traffic movements, a new sight plan or <br /> traffic pattern must be approved." Essentially if there is additional or new stuff <br /> happening, then City staff would look at this again. He wondered if this was too <br /> restrictive whether it be a new applicant or someone continuing the current use. <br /> Ms. Gundlach stated in her experience the City might want to get in the habit with <br /> every Conditional Use (CU) for a drive through to place a condition of approval <br /> that the business has to have an approved circulation plan to get at those things <br /> talked about. That could be made a specific condition of approval, get the plan, <br /> attach it to the resolution, and if the business does not comply with that plan, re- <br /> gardless of who the user is, then the business is not complying with the condition <br /> and the business has to come back and ask for an amendment to the CU. She not- <br /> ed this does not necessarily need to be written into the Ordinance. The City <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.