Laserfiche WebLink
substantial si <br />explained tha <br />uses. Comm <br />replace it <br />construction. <br /> <br />Case #3:'~ Q~estion of Square Foot Requirement for Off-sale Liquor <br /> I EStablishments <br />Police Chi~f!Aus~pos stated that during the 1990-91 licensing period, it was brought to the City <br />Council's attention that Mr. Ralph Nissen, Ralph's Highway #10 Liquor, no longer had the 4,000 <br />square foot ~r ~quifement for liquor establishments due to converting the lower level of the building <br />to a pawn Sh~l~. ~s a remedy, Mr. Nissen was directed to create an outdoor storage area relating <br />to the liquorbus~ess to compensate for the loss of the minimum square footage due to the pawn <br />shop. The O~td0or storage area was never installed and as a result, City Council directed City <br />Staff to che~k in~ the history of the square foot requirement and to determine its necessity. Mr. <br />Auspos staiCfl he has done a lot of research and can't come up with any real rationale for this <br />requirement, i <br /> <br />Zoning Administrator Frolik stated she has been contacted by one other liquor establishment owner <br />who stated that ~e 4,000 square foot requirement is economically difficult also. <br />Motion by C~. n~. issioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner Holland to delete the 4,000 <br />square foot trfi'nimum requkement for off-sale liquor establishments. <br /> <br />Further disau_ssiOn: Ms. Frolik inquired as to the recommendation regarding that language that <br />requires all o~f-sale liquor stores to be new construction. <br /> <br />Amendment ~y Commissioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner Holland to include in his <br />previous motion that the liquor store has to be new construction. <br /> <br />Further disaa~si°n: Commissioner Hendriksen noted that under the new construction requirement <br />if the HighWl~y ~1,0 Liquors building was sold for the same type of business, then it could exist; <br />but if the liq ~u~or ~tore closes and it is vacant for a specified period of time, the building cannot be <br />used as a liqqOr ~ore again. He then asked if Commissioner LaDue's intent was to leave the new <br />constructiori./~luirement in the ordinance. Commissioner Hendriksen inquired what the minimum <br />size building ~a~ for other businesses to which Ms. Frolik replied there is none. Commissioner <br />LaDue stat¢~[ that no other municipality in the region has come up with such a problem. <br />Chairperson ~BaWden stated that anyone serious about a business would make the building a <br />,.e. i Commissioner Deemer inquired about multiple uses of property. Ms. Frolik <br />the Code doesn't prohibit multiple uses in one building as long as they are permitted <br />ssi0ner Hendriksen stated that this action would remove size requirements and not <br />an. Ything else; but it would retain the fact that all new liquor stores have to be new <br /> <br />Motion faile~ VOting Yes: Commissioner LaDue, Holland and Thorud. Voting No: Chairperson <br />Bawden, Corflmiasioners Hendriksen, Deemer and Terry. <br /> r ' <br /> <br />Commissiong HCndriksen stated he doesn't see new construction as a major benefit and it should <br />be discussed f~urther. <br /> <br />Commissioner LaDue inquired what would have been City Council's reasoning behind new <br />construction, <br /> <br />Mr. Ralph l~lisse~, owner of Ralph's Highway #10 Liquors, felt that new construction shouldn't <br />be a requiretn ent]and that a liquor business should be able to move into another existing building <br />All issues ate singled out against the liquor business. He added that if it weren't for multiple use <br />buildings, he ~voaldn't be in business. <br /> <br />Y <br /> <br />Planning <br /> <br />& Zoning Commission/October 6, 1992 <br /> Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />