Laserfiche WebLink
<br />supporter and volunteer. The traffic and congestion is an important factor in old Roseville - the residential <br />area. Shopping center liquor stores have a much different setback requirement. This neighborhood is not a <br />shopping center. This should not be a new trend. <br /> <br />Chair Traynor stated: <br />a) that the proposed request/project will impact traffic for the following reasons: additional trips, <br />peak hour congestion, internal congestion conflicts; <br /> <br />b) that the proposed request/proj ect will impact parks, streets and other public facilities for the <br />following reasons: speculation on parks is difficult to determine whether liquor in the park will be <br />a problem; <br /> <br />c) that the proposed request/project does not have a compatible site plan, internal circulation, <br />landscape and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: not a shopping <br />center, this site is in a residential area; <br /> <br />d) that the proposed request/project will impact the market value of contiguous properties for the <br />following reasons: with respect to other liquor stores, there was not a significant property value <br />impact; not sure about impact on other liquor stores; <br /> <br />e) that the proposed request/project will impact the general public health, safety and welfare for the <br />following reasons: the density within an area can contribute to a decline in public welfare; <br /> <br />f) that the proposed project is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the following <br />reasons: there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that says no further retail in this on this site. <br /> <br />Member Blank expressed his concerns. There are three negative impacts (traffic, parks, streets and welfare); <br />there are deep concerns about residential welfare; there is no compelling public value to have another liquor <br />store in this area. <br /> <br />Member Ipsen asked, regarding item "e", is there any negative impact on other sites - the information is not <br />available or there has not been an expressed concern. <br /> <br />Member Bakeman noted that there is on-sale liquor in many of the same areas as the off-sale areas. <br /> <br />Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend denial ofthe request of <br />SuperAmerica for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail off-sale liquor use in accordance with the <br />findings of the Planning Commission members as follows: <br />a) that the proposed request/project will impact traffic for the following reasons: There will be a <br />3.5% increase in traffic. However, there is no information available regarding traffic accidents in <br />the area and there may be a public service impact. <br /> <br />b) that the proposed request/project will impact parks, streets and other public facilities for the <br />following reasons: insufficient data regarding public safety concerns due to the increase (3.5%) in <br />traffic entering and exiting the site at the four access/conflict points in an area (historically) <br />known to have a need for accident reduction. There will be an impact on the streets and other <br />public facilities and services. <br /> <br />c) that the proposed request/project does not have a compatible site plan, internal circulation, <br />landscape and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: The increased <br />traffic and more intense use of the site will increase internal circulation conflicts. Such internal <br />circulation concerns related to the site plan will impact both traffic and pedestrian motion. <br />Information related to deliveries, optimum site design if fully redeveloped, and entry/exit points <br />do not support the argument that there will not be additional internal circulation problems. Rather, <br />the site plan before us is not significantly changed from the existing site plan, circulation <br /> <br />PF3524 - ReA 012604 - Page 13 of 14 <br />