Minutes - Planning Commission - 10/06/1992

Home

I- i , Commissior~ttr Ti~rry felt that the size limit and new construction requirement was City Council s way of not b4nn~g such businesses but rather limiting the number of off-sale liquor stores. Commissionar LaDue stated he is thoroughly confused regarding the new construction. Motion by CSmmissioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner Hendriksen to recommend that City Council ~el~te the requirement of new construction for off-sale liquor establishments. Motion carrie. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners LaDue, Hendriksen, Holland, Thomd and~err~'~. Voting No: Commissioner Deemer. (Commissioner Deemer stated his reason for voting no,vas because he couldn't see modifying an ordinance that has been violated). Motion by t2~mm, issioner LaDue and seconded by Commissioner Thorud to recommend that City Council elir~nat~ the 4,000 square foot requirement for off-sale liquor establishments to receive a liquor licenSe~ Further diset~ssi0n: Commissioner Hendriksen felt this was the same motion Commissioner LaDue intro~l~ced earlier and argued that such procedure wasn't in compliance with Robert's Rules of Order. ~h~irperson Bawden ruled that it was not the same motion. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that t~ action will make this ordinance less restrictive by allowing liquor stores in existing buildings a~L-'~eliminafing any minimum square footage requirements; this action makes it possible for a person~t,3 sell liquor out of a closet in the back of a building. Chairperson Bawden stated the City doesn'/.-liav~ restrictions on other business and felt it unfair to have such restrictions on the liquor busine:Is. Commissioner Hendriksen stated that the liquor business is of a more dangerous type. Comjniissibner LaDue inquired of Police Chief Auspos if there are any horror stories regarding u~ ~stri~_ ted liquor businesses in other municipalities to which Chief Auspos replied none that he is a~are ~of. Ms. Frolik reminded the Commission of the "common entrance" clause. Commission4r H/~ndriksen asked if this means a liquor business can be any place as long as they have a sepai:4te ~intrance. It was stated that the cost of a liquor license is $200.00 and that the insurance is v'~ry ~xpensive, therefore, persons would have to be serious about the business to put this kind of n~neY into it. Motion carrie. Voting Yes: Chairperson Bawden, Commissioners LaDue, Thorud and Holland. Voting No: lqone: Commissioners Deemer, Hendriksen and Terry. Case #4: ~Request to Vacate Dedicated Street Easement Between P.I.N. 28-32- :25-31-0004 and P.I.N. 28-32-25-31-0003 Project Manager Gromberg stated that due to the narrowness of the lots (P.I.N. 28-32-25-31-0004 and 28-32-2.5~314)003), a frontage road that ends in a cul-de-sac along the north side of the lots along U.S. HighWay #10 would be a better location for the proposed frontage road. He stated, based on comifier/~s from City Staff, he would recommend vacation of this easement. Chairperson Bawden inquired why the easement was acquired in the first place. Mr. Pete Kov~ar Was present and stated that when they purchased the land, the City of Ramsey wanted a street easement as the City thought there would be a major development in back of the railroad trackS. He stated they (Kovar's) knew it wouldn't be wide enough for a service road but thought maYbb another highway would cross this street. Motion by C°mnfissioner Deemer and seconded by Commissioner Holland to recommend that City Council app~ve She vacation of easement between the parcels described as P.I.N. 28-32-25-31- 0004 and P.i.N. 28-32-25-31-0003 located along U.S. Highway #10. Planning & Zoning Commission/October 6, 1992 Page 5 of 8