Laserfiche WebLink
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION <br /> Date: 09/17/12 <br /> Item No.: 13.d <br />Department Approval City Manager Approval <br />Item Description: Continue Discussion on Whether to Amend City Code Chapter 302 Regarding the <br />Number of Allowable Off-Sale Liquor Licenses <br />B <br />ACKGROUND <br />1 <br />On July 23, 2012, the City Council held a discussion on whether to amend City Code Chapter 302, <br />2 <br />regarding the number of allowable off-sale liquor licenses in the City. The discussion was held at the <br />3 <br />request of Cost Plus World Market who is in the process of re-opening at their location along Fairview and <br />4 <br />County Road B2. They are seeking to obtain an off-sale license like they had before they closed the store a <br />5 <br />few years ago. At the conclusion of the discussion, the Council chose to take no action. A Copy of the <br />6 <br />minutes is attached. <br />7 <br />8 <br />The discussion included various options with regard to increasing the number of allowable licenses. <br />9 <br />Options included: <br />10 <br />11 <br />a)Increase the number of allowable licenses on a case-by-case basis. <br />12 <br />b)Increase the number of allowable licenses to 11 or more. <br />13 <br />c)Increase the number of allowable licenses to 11 or more, but further restricting those licenses to <br />14 <br />areas zoned as ‘Regional Business’. <br />15 <br />16 <br />It is suggested that the Council consider Option A with considerable caution. Potential legal challenges <br />17 <br />could arise if the City applied varying standards to prospective applicants. Option B provides the simplest <br />18 <br />approach for considering Cost Plus’ request and perhaps the greatest amount of flexibility in evaluating <br />19 <br />future requests. Option C would accommodate Cost Plus’ request and provides the greatest amount of <br />20 <br />assurance that prospective liquor stores would remain furthest from residential areas. However, there are a <br />21 <br />couple of potential complications under Option C that aren’t present with the other options. <br />22 <br />23 <br />By restricting additional liquor stores to Regional Business zoning districts as suggested under Option C, <br />24 <br />one could argue that the City is creating an inequity in the economic protections afforded to existing liquor <br />25 <br />stores. Existing stores that are located within or near a Regional Business district will see increased <br />26 <br />competition while those that lie further away will see less – because prospective liquor stores won’t be <br />27 <br />permitted in other zoning districts. <br />28 <br />29 <br />Page 1 of 3 <br /> <br />