Laserfiche WebLink
<br />conditions are not improved, but increased; therefore the use requested is not compatible with the <br />existing site. <br /> <br />d) that the proposed request/project will impact the market value of contiguous properties for the <br />following reasons: Reduced market values are not a criteria that appears to be impacted by the <br />proposal. However, marginalized property value increases in comparison to other properties <br />adjacent to a liquor store, may exist. Additionally, insufficient data is available to show that <br />market value of other similar uses in the "buyers shed" will not be harmed. <br /> <br />e) that the proposed request/project will impact the general public health, safety and welfare for the <br />following reasons: Public health, safety, and welfare concerns have been expressed, yet the data <br />IS lacking to establish precise conflicts with the proposed use. More data may be appropriate, <br />although, there do exist public policy concerns relating the separation of liquor sales from other <br />products. <br /> <br />t) that the proposed project is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the following <br />reasons: The data, relating to use and traffic counts, is inconsistent between experts. <br />Accordingly, the proposed use and impacts are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. <br />Specifically, the comprehensive plan estimates and data regarding capacity and acceptable or <br />unacceptable traffic level of service (grade "D") is inconsistent with the data and assumptions <br />contained in the report prepared on behalf of the applicant. <br /> <br />Member Stone said there is a public policy debate in the legislature regarding liquor in grocery stores - is this <br />a circumvention of the law? <br /> <br />Member Ipsen asked the Commission to evaluate "a-f'. <br /> <br />Chair Traynor noted that if any of these findings are met, it is appropriate to deny based on health, safety, <br />welfare, traffic and congestion. <br /> <br />Member Blank supported the Stone motion. Member Peper supported the Stone motion, preferring to have <br />other SuperAmerica information to evaluate. <br /> <br />Roll call: <br />Ayes: Blank, Peper, Bakeman, Stone, Ipsen, Traynor. <br />Nays: None <br /> <br />Motion to recommend denial is approved 6-0. <br /> <br />PF3524 - ReA 012604 - Page 14 of 14 <br />