pm_020608 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, February 06, 2008 Page 2 2008. City Code, Section 302, related to operations of a liquor store was referenced by staff. Commissioner Gasongo noted the recently-approved application for the apartment building improvements to the north, and questioned the impact of this land use on those neighborhood improvements and market values. Mr. Lloyd advised that this improvement would eliminate vacant space, and had not been reviewed for impacts to market value of adjoining properties, as beyond the scope of the land use consideration, with this use recognized as compatible in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Boerigter questioned whether the Commission was to consider City Code Section 302.02 – 302.13d, or if those were for the City Council’s consideration in issuing a liquor license. Mr. Lloyd advised that the Code Section was included only for informational purposes for the Commission to be aware of off-sale liquor store operations, and that staff was not indicating any additional conditions to this use for Commission application. Discussion included exterior elevations of the building and the desire of the Commission for improvements; future sign permit as per code; additional landscaping amenities; fencing between the subject and neighboring residential property as per code requirement; softening the impact to adjacent properties through additional green space or screening; and limitations to site conditions based on inside activities related to the CUP. Additional discussion included communication with neighbors to-date, with Mr. Lloyd advising he had received one (1) phone call from the residential property owner on the west, concerned with loitering of clientele using the facility, indicating that more residents of the building shared those concerns. However, Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had received no other communications to-date, with the exception of a query from a resident seeking how to contact the Planning Commission, and how to receive additional information on the application. Commissioners Boerigter and Wozniak advised that they had received several e-mail objections to the proposal, based on perceived negative impacts of liquor store activities. Staff noted that the applicant was not present. Public Comment Deedee Goodwin, 2206 Haddington Road Ms. Goodwin referenced Section 6.6 of the staff report related to the project’s impact on the general public health, safety and welfare; and addressed the project’s proximity to parks, specifically Brimhall School and Evergreen Park. Ms. Goodwin challenged the staff report’s statement that the site was over ½ mile from the school and park; and opined that the liquor store would have a detrimental impact on the neighborhood that was already experiencing a serious drug problem. Ms. Goodwin addressed her work history in corrections; ATF activity in the Haddington Road area in the past; and impacts to the neighborhood from the recently-enlarged Target store and historical patterns of crime following big box retail centers. Ms. Goodwin asked that the Commission consider the effects of a liquor store on the residential quality of life issues and the increased crime in the neighborhood (i.e., increased foot traffic, more police calls at bus stops, increased graffiti, increased trash and littering), and future increases in residential property densities due to additional rental units (i.e., Har Mar Apartment improvements and construction of additional units). Ms. Goodwin opined that, from a personal and professional position, by putting liquor store in that location, it would only be increasing problems.