pm_031001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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