My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_031001
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
pm_031001
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:36:12 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 8:04:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/1/2003
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
<br />highest and best use? <br /> <br />Bob Bushirck, 1040 Parker Avenue, explained that the microphones and speakers are very loud, day and night. It <br />is hard to separate liquor and gas. <br /> <br />Andre Soupre said ordinances should be enforced. Speakers are in use all day and night. There are other sites for <br />a liquor store. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder closed the hearing. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Traynor moved, second by Member Peper, to continue the hearing on this project until the <br />applicant has completed an internal and external and overall traffic study and study the accesses to the <br />site; and, the staff has contacted the County Assessor regarding the impact of a market feasibility study of <br />the impact on adjacent properties; and, Super America has provided details of increase in traffic counts <br />and head counts based on added liquor store customers; and, requests has been made for the extension <br />of the time review for an additional 60 days beyond the initial 60 day period, with studies paid by the <br />applicant. Staff will re-notify the residents. <br /> <br />Ayes: 4, Traynor, Peper, Stone, Mulder <br />Nays: 2, Ipsen, Bakeman <br />Motion carried 4-2. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman spoke opposed to the motion. The traffic study will not show anything new that would answer <br />questions rather than put it off for 60 days. <br /> <br />Member Traynor said there was not enough information - mostly anecdotal information is available at this time. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder said the window of opportunity is now open to review this entire site and look at driveway access <br />points. This may provide a moderate amount of relief to the site. Staff could be directed to find whether there is a <br />market value decline based on the liquor store. <br /> <br />Member Stone explained that circulation and parking on the site is a part of the Conditional Use Permit. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman asked for a bigger notice area by using the sign at the site. <br /> <br />f. Planning File 3531: Request by the City of Roseville to amend City Code Sections 1102.01 E through G by <br />eliminating the requirement for a second public hearing by the City Council prior to final plat review and <br />approvals. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder opened the hearing and requested Dennis Welsch present a verbal summary of the staff report dated <br />October 1, 2003. <br /> <br />Dennis Welsch explained that the City Council has requested that the Planning Commission and staff review the <br />current requirement within Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 11 02.E through G which states that the City Council must <br />hold a hearing on a "Final" plat. The discussion at the Council meeting was this hearing is not needed as long as <br />the Council retains authority to approve the final plat. The subdivision process already has one formal hearing, <br />which the Planning Commission holds on the preliminary plat. (One hearing is required by state statute.) The <br />Council then takes action on the preliminary plat. Once the developer has completed all the work required by the <br />preliminary approvals and conditions, the developer returns to the City Council for final approvals. It is rare that the <br />public has interest in the "Final" plat since the final plat process is used primarily to ascertain that the developer has <br />complied with the details of the preliminary plat and to approve contacts/agreements for public infrastructure <br />improvements. <br /> <br />This amendment, if passed, would eliminate one set of mailed and published notices, and move the Council <br />agenda item (a final plat) from "Hearings" to the "Land Use" or "Consent". The Council procedurally and at its <br />discretion, can continue to recognize a resident for comments on the final plat without holding a hearing. <br /> <br />Eliminating the second hearing would reduce the cost and time that must be spent on preparation for the second <br />hearing. <br /> <br />A second hearing is not required by state statutes. <br /> <br />There was no public comment offered. <br /> <br />Chair Mulder closed the hearing. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.