Laserfiche WebLink
supporter and volunteer. The traffic and congestion is an important factor in o1d Roseville — the residential <br />area. Shopping center liquor stores have a much different setback requirement. This neighborhood is not a <br />shopping center. This should not be a new trend. <br />Chair Traynor stated: <br />a) that the proposed request/project wi11 impact traf�ic for the following reasons: additional trips, <br />peak hour congestion, internal congestion conflicts; <br />b) that the proposed requestlproject wi11 impact parks, streets and other public facilities for the <br />following reasons: speculation on parks is difficult to determine whether liquor in the park wi11 be <br />a problem; <br />c) that the proposed requestlproject does not have a compatible site p1an, internal circulation, <br />landscape and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: not a shopping <br />center, this site is in a residential area; <br />d) that the proposed request/project wi11 impact the marketvalue of contiguouspropertiesfor the <br />following reasons: with respect to other liquor stores, there was not a signi�icantproperty value <br />impact; not sure about impact on other liquor stores; <br />e) that the proposed request/project wi11 impact the general public health, safety and welfare for the <br />following reasons: the density within an area can contribute to a decline in public welfare; <br />� that the proposed project is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive P1an for the following <br />reasons: there is nothing in the ComprehensivePlan that says no furtherretail in this on this site. <br />MemberBlank expressed his concerns. There are three negative impacts (traf�ic, parks, streets and welfare); <br />there are deep concerns about residential welfare; there is no compelling public value to have another liquor <br />store in this area. <br />Member Ipsen asked, regarding item "e", is there any negative impact on other sites — the information is not <br />available or there has not been an expressed concern. <br />Member Bakeman noted that there is on-sale liquor in many of the same areas as the off-sale areas. <br />Motion: Member Stone moved, seconded by Member Bakeman, to recommend denial of the request of <br />SuperAmerica for a Conditional Use Permit for a retail off-sale liquor use in accordance with the <br />findings of the Planning Commission members as follows: <br />a) that the proposed request/project wi11 impact traf�ic for the following reasons: There wi11 be a <br />3.5% increase in traf�ic. However, there is no information available regarding traf�ic accidents in <br />the area and there may be a public service impact. <br />b) that the proposed requestlproj ect wi11 impact parks, streets and other public facilities for the <br />following reasons: insuf�icient data regarding public safety concerns due to the increase (3.5%) in <br />traf�ic entering and exiting the site at the four access/conflict points in an area (historically) <br />known to have a need for accident reduction. There wi11 be an impact on the streets and other <br />public facilities and services. <br />c) that the proposed requestlproject does not have a compatible site p1an, internal circulation, <br />landscape and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: The increased <br />traf�ic and more intense use of the site wi11 increase internal circulation conflicts. Such internal <br />circulation concerns related to the site plan wi11 impact both traffic and pedestrian motion. <br />Information related to deliveries, optimum site design if fu11y redeveloped, and entry/exit points <br />do not support the argument that there wi11 not be additional internal circulation problems. Rather, <br />the site plan before us is not signi�icantly changed from the existing site p1an, circulation <br />PF3524 — RCA 012604 - Page 13 of 14 <br />