Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. Was notification adequate? <br /> <br />MSA ~ 462.357, Subd. 3, which is made applicable to hearings on conditional use <br />permits by ~462.3595, Subd. 2, provides that "the failure to give mailed notice to <br />individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings, <br />provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this subdivision has been made." The City <br />Code similarly provides in Section 108.01B that "failure to mail notice or the failure of <br />the property owners to receive the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings." While the <br />official mailed notice of the planning commission hearing was admittedly deficient, the <br />defect does not obviate the proceedings or require another formal hearing to be held. It <br />appears clear from previous hearings and meetings that all affected property owners and <br />residents have actual notice of the pending proceedings. <br /> <br />. How does the 24 hour service ordinance affect this proposal? <br /> <br />It is applicable because of the hours of operation proposed and the performance standards <br />specified in Section 1 006 of the City Code will be applied to the site plan to be submitted <br />subsequent to action on the Conditional Use Permit. <br /> <br />. What conditions should/could be added to the Conditional Use Permit? <br /> <br />While city staff have concluded that current code provisions and standards, and the <br />proposed terms and conditions of the Conditional Use Permit, are sufficient to protect <br />neighboring properties from the land use impacts of the proposed use, the Council could <br />impose additional reasonable terms and conditions to protect neighboring properties. <br /> <br />I am not confident, however, that the concerns and claims entered into the record to this <br />date would be sufficient to sustain a denial of the proposed conditional use permit. <br /> <br />3 <br />