04-26-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

File #04-2977 April 16, 2004 Page 2 of 8 Exhibit E Exhibit F Exhibit G Exhibit H Exhibit I - Exhibit J - - Council Memo dated 3-16-04 RE: Request for Liquor License - Council Minutes from 3-22-04 Meeting RE: Liquor License - Memo to Applicants RE: Staff Concerns dated 4-12-04 - 60-Day Extension Letters B - 1, General Business District Standards Public Hearing Notice to Neighbor’s within 350 ’ Background This application was originally heard at the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting several neighbors voiced concerns regarding the application and their written comments can be found in the Staff Report attached as Exhibit C. Many of the concerns related to the proposed liquor license which was applied for by the proposed restaurant owner, Paul Ode. The continued review of this application should be conducted with the understanding that a liquor license will be applied for in conjunction with the uses, however the City Council ultimately determines whether a liquor license will be granted through a separate public hearing. An initial request by Mr. Paul Ode for a liquor license was denied by the City Council on March 22,2004 (see attached minutes. Exhibit F). Currently, Paul Ode has inalcatcd that a new partner will apply for a liquor license, which will require another public hearing by the City Council. The City Council’s previous denial was based on false information provided on the application by Mr. Paul Ode. The denial was also based on the site’s proximity to a residential neighborhood and liquor having a greater potential for more noise, public disturbances, litter, damage to property and calls to police. The Planning Commission, at the January 20'*’ meeting, moved that the application be tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff to draft plans finalizing a number of issues. The application did not go back to the Planning Commission, until now, because of the uncertainty that centered on approval of the liquor license. Although stciff is fairly certain that the Council will not approve a 'iquor license, the applicants wish to continue review of their project. Below is a lis» f items the Planning Commission requested further review of at the January 20'*’ meeting: • revised parking plan incorporating a 10 ’ green space yard along Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, • analysis of the current parking demands and the required parking of the entire site, • revised plans depicting areas of loading, • specific signage proposed, • current and proposed lighting locations, and • a landscape plan This report will focus on the issues above and specifically the effects of a restaurant with liquor and without liquor. The Plaining Commission should review the issues and give the applicant guidance on what the Planning Commission and ultimately tlie Council might see as appropriate uses for this site.