PC 08/27/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

. . . in the Downtown area are allowed to sell liquor. He stated that he has trouble coming up with a rationale as to why liquor is a bigger problem there than any other part of the City. Mr. Iserson commented that a supermarket is a little more insulated, whereas liquor stores lUld convenience stores cause more traffic coming in and out of the business, and that there is a potential for loitering and littering, and late night hours. Liquor sales in a supermarket are ancillary to the primary food sale use, but this is not the case with liquor stores. He noted that it is his understanding that Bonfare Market is intending to open in the Vintage Hills Shopping Center and may come before the Planning Commission to request a reconsideration regarding the sale of hard liquor. In response to a question from Commissioner Kumaran, Mr. Iserson provided clarification as to the difference between conditional uses and permitted uses. Discussion ensued regarding the difference between the classification of liquor stores, grocery stores, and convenience stores. Commissioner Cooper expressed concern that Bonfare Market seems to be a step above a convenience store and that he hopes it has not been singled out. Mr. Iserson advised that the amendment is not directed at Bonfare Market, but was needed to close a "loophole" in the Code. A motion was made by Commissioner Kumaran, seconded by Commissioner Dove, recommending approval of Case RZ-97-05, as shown on Exhibit "A" of the staff report. Commissioner Cooper noted that he was not in sympathy with limiting liquor sales except in hours of operation which we did limit at Bonfare Market and it was nothing the Planning Commission came up with. He stated that he would like to see Bonfare Market go into the Vintage Hills Shopping Center. He supports this amendment to "clean-up" the Code, especially in that it is not aimed at the Bonfare Market. ROLL CALL VOTE AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Dove, Kwnaran, Lutz, and Chair Cooper None Commissioners Barker and Wright None Resolution No. PC 97-75 was entered and adopted as motioned. f. ReQuest to exempt the traffic e:enerated bv a proposed dav care use from the City's traffic reQuirements at the Hopvard Road/Owens Drive intersection. This exemption would allow the processine: of an application (PUD-81-30-70D) for a dav care on Chabot Drive next to Arbv's restaurant without addinl!: the additional traffic of the day care to that which was anticipated in the City's traffic model for the determination of the Level of Service at this intersection. This application was withdrawn by the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 August 27, 1997