Laserfiche WebLink
- MINUTES OF THE <br /> ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 <br /> 6:00 o'clock p.m. <br /> (2. #04-2974 RELIANCE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLP, "STONEBAY <br /> MARKETPLACE," NW QUADRANT HWY 12/WILLOW DRIVE, COMMERCIAL PUD <br /> DEVELOPMENT—Continued) <br /> Bremer concurred but pointed out it all is conditioned on MnDOT's decision regarding use on Outlot <br /> B. <br /> Chair Mabusth moved, Kempf seconded, to table Application #04-2974 Reliance Development <br /> Company, LLP, NW Corner of Willow Drive N. and Hwy 12 (Outlot A, Stonebay), PUD <br /> Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Plat, and Commercial Site Plan <br /> Review until the May 2004 Planning Commission meeting when all of the above-mentioned <br /> items will be provided by the applicant with adequate time for city consultants' review and <br /> comments prior to the Planning Commission's May 2004 meeting. <br /> VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. <br /> #3. 04-2977 MICHAEL KEAVENY ON BEHALF OF RICHARD M. KEAVENY REV. <br /> TRUST,3423/3425 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND <br /> COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN REVIEW) CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING (7:15- <br /> 8:00 p.m.) <br /> Mike Keaveny, applicant, representing the Richard M. Keaveny Trust, was present. <br /> Gundlach reported the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Class II <br /> restaurant (with liquor) and a number of variances in conjunction with the required Commercial Site <br /> Plan review. This application was brought to the Planning Commission at its January, 2004 meeting <br /> where it was tabled so the applicant could work with staff on a number of issues related to the site <br /> plan, including parking, loading areas, signage, lighting, the amount of green space required along <br /> Shoreline Drive and Kelly Avenue, and also, general landscaping. A hardcover variance is also one <br /> component that is somewhat inevitable due to the existing non-conforming conditions. Since January <br /> 2004 the application has been on hold pending a public hearing for a liquor license. The liquor <br /> license was denied on March 22, 2004 by the City Council due to a number of issues, including the <br /> liquor license applicant and the proximity to the adjacent residential neighborhood. She advised that <br /> the restaurant operator has indicated that a new partner of his will be applying for a liquor license and <br /> that is the reason for the continuation of the proposal at the Planning Commission. <br /> As stated at the January, 2004 Planning Commission meeting, Gundlach reiterated the Planning <br /> Commission's role in reviewing this site as it pertains to alcohol is not whether alcohol is appropriate <br /> or not(as this is a City Council matter) but rather what particular issues are appropriate and how the <br /> site is affected if liquor is served or not. <br /> She referred to the January 20, 2004 Planning Commission minutes and March 22, 2004 City Council <br /> minutes, which were attached to the staff report for reference. Gundlach stated staff's opinion is that <br /> the City Council will not approve a liquor license for a restaurant regardless who applies for it due to <br /> proximity to a residential neighborhood to the south. <br /> Gundlach recommended denial of the CUP request and associated commercial site plan review with <br /> variances primarily based on two factors: 1) City Council will not approve a liquor license for a <br /> restaurant on the site as it is too close to a residential neighborhood, 2) operation of a Class II <br /> Page 13 of 49 <br />