My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pf08-004
Roseville
>
Planning Files
>
2008
>
pf08-004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/28/2014 3:32:49 PM
Creation date
6/19/2013 3:36:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning Files
Planning Files - Planning File #
08-004
Planning Files - Type
Conditional Use Permit
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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
� Draft Planning Commission Minutes Attachment D <br />� PLANNING FILE 08-004 <br />z Request by Snelling Liquor for a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT to allow an off-sale liquor store in <br />� the existing building at 2217 Snelling Avenue <br />G Chair Bakeman opened the Public Hearing for Planning File 08-004. <br />� Mr. Lloyd reviewed the request of Steve Ailen, in conjunction with property owners Clifford and Marylin <br />� Snyder for approval of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) to allow a 1,800 square foot, off-sale liquor <br />� store, d/b/a Snelling Liquor, in the existing building at 2217 Snelling Avenue. <br />e Mr. Lloyd noted the different City Code defnitions and requirements for stand-alone versus those liquor <br />n stores located within a shopping center building; and briefly reviewed applicable CUP criteria, or <br />io proposed conditions of approval. <br />i� Staff recommended APPROVAL of the CUP for Steve Allen for a proposed off-sale tiquor store at 2217 <br />iz Snelling Avenue, to operate in compliance with requirements and regulations established in Roseville City <br />i3 Code, Section 1004.01G; and based on comments and fndings of Sections 5 and 6 of the project report <br />�a dated February 6, 2008. City Code, Section 302, related to operations of a liquor store was referenced by <br />is staff. <br />is Commissioner Gasongo noted the recently-approved application for the apartment building improvements <br />i � to the north, and questioned the impact of this land use on those neighborhood improvements and market <br />ie values. <br />is Mr. Lloyd advised that this improvement would eliminate vacant space, and had not been reviewed for <br />zo impacts to market value of adjoining properties, as beyond the scope of the land use consideration, with <br />2i this use recognized as compatible in the Comprehensive Plan. <br />zz Commissioner Boerigter questioned whether the Commission was to consider City Code Section 302.02 <br />zs — 302.13d, or if those were for the City Council's consideration in issuing a liquor license. <br />za Mr. Lloyd advised that the Code Section was included only for informational purposes for the Commission <br />zs to be aware of off-sale liquor store operations, and that staff was not indicating any additional conditions <br />zs to this use for Commission application. <br />2� Discussion included exterior elevations of the building and the desire of the Commission for <br />za improvements; future sign permit as per code; additional landscaping amenities; fencing between the <br />zs subject and neighboring residential property as per code requirement; softening the impact to adjacent <br />3o properties through additional green space or screening; and limitations to site conditions based on inside <br />si activities related to the CUP. <br />s2 Additional discussion included communication with neighbors to-date, with Mr. Lloyd advising he had <br />3s received one (1) phone call from the residential property owner on the west, concerned with loitering of <br />aa clientele using the facility, indicating that more residents of the building shared those concerns. However, <br />ss Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had received no other communications to-date, with the exception of a query <br />ss from a resident seeking how to contact the Planning Commission, and how to receive additional <br />s� information on the application. <br />ss Commissioners Boerigter and Wozniak advised that they had received several e-mail objections to the <br />3s proposal, based on perceived negative impacts of liquor store activities. <br />ao Staff noted that the applicant was not present. <br />ai Public Comment <br />az Deedee Goodwin, 2206 Haddington Road <br />as Ms. Goodwin referenced Section 6.6 of the staff report related to the projecYs impact on the general <br />aa public health, safety and welfare; and addressed the projecYs proximity to parks, specifically Brimhall <br />as School and Evergreen Park. Ms. Goodwin challenged the staff report's statement that the site was over'/z <br />as mile from the school and park; and opined that the liquor store would have a detrimental impact on the <br />a� neighborhood that was already experiencing a serious drug problem. Ms. Goodwin addressed her work <br />as history in corrections; ATF activity, in the Haddington Road area in the past; and impacts to the <br />as neighborhood from the recently-enlarged Target store and historical patterns of crime following big box <br />so retail centers. Ms. Goodwin asked that the Commission consider the affects of a liquor store on the <br />Page 1 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.