pf_03524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

1 d) that the proposed request/project will impact the market value of contiguous properties 2 for the following reasons: Reduced market values are not a criteria that appears to be 3 impacted by the proposal. However, marginalized property value increases in 4 comparison to other properties adjacent to a liquor store, may exist. Additionally, 5 insufficient data is available to show that market value of other similar uses in the 6 "buyers shed" will not be harmed. 7 e) that the proposed request/project will impact the general public health, safety and welfare 8 for the following reasons: Public health, safety, and welfare concerns have been 9 expressed, yet the data is lacking to establish precise conflicts with the proposed use. 10 More data may be appropriate, although, there do exist public policy concerns relating 11 the separation of liquor sales from other products. 12 f) that the proposed project is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the 13 following reasons: The data, relating to use and traffic counts, is inconsistent between 14 experts. Accordingly, the proposed use and impacts are inconsistent with the 15 comprehensive plan. Specifically, the comprehensive plan estimates and data regarding 16 capacity and acceptable or unacceptable traffic level of service (grade "D") is 1 7 inconsistent with the data and assumptions contained in the report prepared on behalf of 18 the applicant. 19 Member Stone said there is a public policy debate in the legislature regarding liquor in grocery 20 stores - is this a circumvention of the law? 21 Member Ipsen asked the Commission to evaluate "a-f'. 22 Chair Traynor noted that if any of these findings are met, it is appropriate to deny based on 23 health, safety, welfare, traffic and congestion. 24 Member Blank supported the Stone motion. Member Peper supported the Stone motion, 25 preferring to have other SuperAmerica information to evaluate. 26 Roll call: 27 Ayes: Blank, Peper, Bakeman, Stone, Ipsen, Traynor. 28 Nays: None 29 Motion to recommend denial is approved 6-0. 30 31 ....10 Minute Break.... 32 (During the break after action was taken on item 6a, Rose Variance, Chair Traynor was 33 approached by an adjacent property owner to the Rose property who was opposed the request and 34 was prepared to present his concerns/opposition to the Commission.) After reconvening the 35 meeting, Chair Traynor asked the Commission to reconsider the Rose Variance request in light of 36 this information and due to the fact that the item was moved-up on the agenda. 37 38 Motion: Chair Traynor moved, second by Member Bakeman, to reopen the Rose Variance 39 hearing and to rescind the motion of approval, pending further input from residents within 350 40 feet, and continue the hearing to the Commission's February 4,2004, with full notice being 41 given, and to recommend to the Council an extension of the 60-day review deadline for an 42 additional 60 days. 43 Ayes: 6 Page 9 of 11