pf_03524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 a) that the proposed request/project will impact traffic for the following reasons: additional 2 trips, peak hour congestion, internal congestion conflicts; 3 b) that the proposed request/project will impact parks, streets and other public facilities for 4 the following reasons: speculation on parks is difficult to determine whether liquor in the 5 park will be a problem; 6 c) that the proposed request/project does not have a compatible site plan, internal 7 circulation, landscape and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: 8 not a shopping center, this site is in a residential area; 9 d) that the proposed request/project will impact the market value of contiguous properties 10 for the following reasons: with respect to other liquor stores, there was not a significant 11 property value impact; not sure about impact on other liquor stores; 12 e) that the proposed request/project will impact the general public health, safety and welfare 13 for the following reasons: the density within an area can contribute to a decline in public 14 welfare; 15 1) that the proposed project is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the 16 following reasons: there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that says no further retail 17 in this on this site. 18 Member Blank expressed his concerns. There are three negative impacts (traffic, parks, streets 19 and welfare); there are deep concerns about residential welfare; there is no compelling public 20 value to have another liquor store in this area. 21 Member Ipsen asked, regarding item "e", is there any negative impact on other sites - the 22 information is not available or there has not been an expressed concern. 23 Member Bakeman noted that there is on-sale liquor in many of the same areas as the off-sale 24 areas. 25 Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend denial ofthe 26 request of SuperAmerica for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail off-sale liquor use in 27 accordance with the findings of the Planning Commission members as follows: 28 a) that the proposed request/project will impact traffic for the following reasons: There will 29 be a 3.5% increase in traffic. However, there is no information available regarding traffic 30 accidents in the area and there may be a public service impact. 31 b) that the proposed request/project will impact parks, streets and other public facilities for 32 the following reasons: insufficient data regarding public safety concerns due to the 33 increase (3.5%) in traffic entering and exiting the site at the four access/conflict points in 34 an area (historically) known to have a need for accident reduction. There will be an 35 impact on the streets and other public facilities and services. 36 c) that the proposed request/project does not have a compatible site plan, internal 37 circulation, landscape and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: 38 The increased traffic and more intense use of the site will increase internal circulation 39 conflicts. Such internal circulation concerns related to the site plan will impact both 40 traffic and pedestrian motion. Information related to deliveries, optimum site design if 41 fully redeveloped, and entry/exit points do not support the argument that there will not be 42 additional internal circulation problems. Rather, the site plan before us is not 43 significantly changed from the existing site plan, circulation conditions are not improved, 44 but increased; therefore the use requested is not compatible with the existing site. Page 8 of 11