Laserfiche WebLink
Saturday. <br />Mr. Paschke noted he received a number of telephone ca11s opposing the request due to the increased trafiic <br />and submitted 2 emails to the Chair both opposingthe request. Chair Traynor read bothemails into the record <br />(Mi10 Peltron, Burke Avenue, because of night time traffic and on-site liquor, and Wi11 Jass and Lester Dee, <br />Sherman Street, because of traffic closeness to Calvary Church, Lexington Park, Calvary Day Care, and <br />adj acent multi-family housing). <br />Chair Traynor asked for details of why a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is needed. Mr. Paschke explained <br />that if a liquor store is located within a shopping center as defined by Section 1002.02 of the City Code, no <br />CUP is required. However,liquor stores not located in shopping centers (stand along facilities) and within the <br />B-2, B-3 and B-4 zones require a CUP. Mr. Paschke explained the newest liquor store is within Lexington <br />P1aza Shopping Center. Member Peper noted that the use (liquor) is permitted with a CUP but that a license <br />for liquor is required from the Council. <br />Chair Traynor asked for clari�ication of adjacency of uses and buildings adjacent to residential zones. The <br />SuperAmerica is relatively closer to residential areas. Mr. Paschke did not agree stating that 4 other off-sale <br />liquor stores are of a similar distance to residential, parks, and schools as the proposal by SuperAmerica. Mr. <br />Paschke added that there is no distance requirement in the land use portion (Tit1e 10) of the City Code. <br />Member Peper noted that liquor stores are not open on Sundays (change the staff recommendation). <br />Member Bakeman asked for history of the site. Thomas Paschke explained the City Council approved a <br />Special Use Permit(SUP) in 1985 for gas and convenience store and a variancewith conditions; in 1987 the <br />Council approved an amendmentto the ComprehensivePlan and a SUP for expanding the use ofthe site to <br />the east wlconditions; and in 1990 the Council approved a SUP for exterior display of inerchandise. <br />Chair Traynor asked how a different use can be compatible with the site. Thomas Paschke explained that <br />liquor is a retail use, permitted on the site if it is determined to meet the criteria established und the CUP <br />process. <br />Member Peper asked when the four curb cuts were created (1985). Traffic has increased significantly since <br />then. Should the two driveway entries closest to the corner remain? Are they useful? (They act as relievers <br />for traffic.) <br />Member Stone asked for details on ADT and turning movements. <br />G1en Van Wormer, SEH Consultants senior traf�ic engineer, explained the traffic volumes. He noted the <br />volumes have remained consistent and stable for the past ten years. He explained volume of traffic based on <br />similar uses; 80% of customers are already on the site for gas/convenience, while 20% wi11 enter the site for <br />liquor only (100 additional trips per day — with 3400 trips total per day). The change from 1600 s.f. to 2200 <br />s.f, was analyzed, including the reduction in convenience store. The capacity ofthe intersection is 1eve1" D, <br />with north bound and east bound congestion. It sti11 works at design capacity for a three-lane road. <br />Member Bakeman noted that a change from four lane to three lane in recentyears has created trafficbackups <br />from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m., consistently on Thursday and Friday evenings. Where in category'D" does this <br />intersection �it (high or 1ow, and what happens when new vehicles are added). <br />Mr. Van Wormer noted trafiic 1eve1 "D" — 75% iilled is sti11 usable. He calculated the new liquoruse wi11 add <br />one car every 5 to 6 minutes in peak times —which is acceptable from engineering perspective. There wi11 be <br />a total of 100 additional vehicles. <br />MemberBakeman asked if average convenience store use would be 50150, but at this site it would be slightly <br />more convenience sales customers compared to gas sales. <br />Chair Traynor asked if an acceptable design in " D. In the Comprehensive P1an (Dan Meyer, BRV� states <br />that road condition " D is not acceptable. Mr. Van Wormer stated he would not dispute the letter in the <br />PF3524 — RCA 012604 - Page 10 of 14 <br />