pm_040107 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Consultants traffic counts and projections. George Edwards, 1032 Parker Ave., asked whether there will be an interior connection for the public from the convenience store to liquor store. (no) Andres Vape, 15 year owner of multi-family housing, commented that he was concerned that staff opposed the public sentiment. Staff is working against neighbors. Elliot Park (Minneapolis) has serious alcohol problem so does Steven Square Park, Lowry, Fair Oaks Parks. Children going to church and day care facilities would be threatened by drunks. He saw a resident mugged going to the existing SuperAmerica store. Comparisons from other states are not applicable. Negative input currently with SuperAmerica, should improve the neighborhood. He expressed concern with traffic along Lexington and the driveways from his site. The SuperAmerica fence blocks the visibility of his renters. He expressed concern with deliveries at northwest corner of site. Delivery will block north-south walkway between apartments and SuperAmerica. The traffic accident report for Lexington and County Road B has not been made available. Andrew Stark, 1009 Parker Avenue, noted that between 3 and 5 p.m. he cannot get on to Lexington Avenue. Burke Avenue has an even worse access problem. Bob Bashinsky expressed concern about traffic congestion. Tim Cook, 1049 Sherren Street, stated SuperAmerica is circumventing the law by having a liquor store in same building with gas station. What is the public welfare of another liquor store? Is the public welfare of Roseville best served by four liquor stores within one square mile? He suggested SuperAmerica sell formula drugs, bread and butter. There will be property value declines. The park use by adults will make it an easy area to drink in the Park. Alcohol related incidents have occurred in this area. The staff report is not a "full picture". The Comprehensive Plan must not mean four liquor stores concentrated in a one mile area. He recommended that the Planning Commission deny the application. Faith Watters, Calvary Church, explained this is not a compatible use near the church and park. If a liquor store is in the area, it is a problem because it is so close to Lexington Court apartments, the schools, the church and park. What difference does public opinion make in this process? Bill Cross, Network Liquors owner, 2727 Lexington Ave., said the property values of his store will be hurt by another liquor store. It will reduce the sales in his store. Cub and SuperAmerica are major competitors. If sales are reduced 20% he may not be here next year. Some cities have radius separating limits. Roseville has one liquor store per 3,000 residents. Member Blank asked if liquor cannot be sold in the same store (must be separated). Andres Vape expressed concern regarding property values on his site. No one qualified to make a determination about property values in this case. Property next to a liquor store will have a lower property value. Chair Traynor closed the hearing. Member Peper noted that as a consumer it would be effective to make one stop instead of two stops. They would make improvements to the site. However, it is within walking distance of an apartment building. Member Bakeman noted Roseville has a history of land use firsts. SuperAmerica was a park community supporter and volunteer. The traffic and congestion is an important factor in old Roseville - the residential area. Shopping center liquor stores have a much different setback requirement. This neighborhood is not a shopping center. This should not be a new trend. Chair Traynor stated: a) that the proposed request/project will impact traffic for the following reasons: additional trips, peak hour congestion, internal congestion conflicts; b) that the proposed request/project will impact parks, streets and other public facilities for the following reasons: speculation on parks is difficult to determine whether liquor in the park will be a problem; c) that the proposed request/project does not have a compatible site plan, internal circulation, landscape and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: not a shopping center, this site is in a residential area; d) that the proposed requesUproject will impact the market value of contiguous properties for the following reasons: with respect to other liquor stores, there was not a significant property value impact; not sure about impact on other liquor stores; e) that the proposed request/project will impact the general public health, safety and welfare for the following reasons: the density within an area can contribute to a decline in public welfare; f) that the proposed project is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that says no further retail in this on this site. Member Blank expressed his concerns. There are three negative impacts (traffic, parks, streets and welfare); there are deep concerns about residential welfare; there is no compelling public value to have another liquor store in this area. Member Ipsen asked, regarding item "e", is there any negative impact on other sites - the information is not available or there has not been an expressed concern. Member Bakeman noted that there is on-sale liquor in many of the same areas as the off-sale areas. Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend denial of the request of SuperAmerica for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail off-sale liquor use in accordance with the findings of the Planning Commission members as follows: a) that the proposed request/project will impact traffic for the following reasons: There will be a 3.5% increase in traffic. However, there is no information available regarding traffic accidents in the area and