Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, February 25, 2008 <br />Page 20 <br />Commission provided a 6/1 recommendation for approval of the CUP request, <br />with draft minutes of the hearing included in the staff report, indicating discussion <br />at the Hearing. Mr. Lloyd noted that staff recommended approval, based on com- <br />pliance with requirements and regulations established in Section 1004.O1G of <br />City Code. <br />Discussion included the location of the stand-alone facility immediately south of <br />Har Mar Apartments; land use versus availability of the one remaining off-sale <br />liquor license; City Attorney clarification of Section 1013.03 of City Code and <br />unilateral sunset provisions of the CUP by operation of the pirovision that it would <br />become void if the 10t~' liquor license was taken elsewhere; and traffic impacts <br />and parking lot access issues, and inability to apply specific conditions based on <br />certain thresholds for this use and no plamied external physical improvements. <br />Further discussion included firture policy discussion. on when a liquor store was a <br />good use for a specific site; specificity of the land use issue itself; and clarifica- <br />tion by the City Attorney that the City Cotmcil has already determined that a liq- <br />uor store is a compatible use, provided it meets CUP criteria. <br />Councilmember Ihlan advocated for a policy discussion based on the impact to <br />the general public health, safety and welfare of neighboring properties; and <br />whether this was an appropriate location for a liquor store. <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the CUP land use application and future pol- <br />icy discussions on liquor license locations and quantity; with City Attorney clari- <br />fication that if the Council was to take action to approve the CUP, that they spec- <br />ify that the applicant was applying for and needed to obtain a liquor license to <br />prevent dissatisfaction of the applicant and any future attempts to recoup incurred <br />expenses. <br />No one appeared to speak to the issue; and Councilmembers acknowledged writ- <br />ten and e-mail public comment received at the Planning Commission level and <br />those included in the staff report. <br />Applicant, Steve Allen <br />Mr. Allen advised that he also owned a small liquor store in Minneapolis, and his <br />intent was to apply for the last liquor license in Roseville. Mr. Allen reviewed his <br />choice of sites and consideration of other locations and market factors; Mr. Al- <br />len's interest in becoming a member of the business community; factors in choos- <br />ing Roseville, based on family in the community; desire to locate in a residential <br />neighborhood for convenience of the customers and interest in knowing custom- <br />ers in a smaller business. <br />Roe moved, Pust seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10601 entitled, "A Reso- <br />lution Approving a Conditional Use Permit in Accordance with Roseville City <br />