PL MINUTES 04171979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- The Manager gave the justifications , as he saw them, for con- sidering alternatives to the existing Apache liquor operation and to increase its productivity as it is a vital source of income for the City. He pointed out the hard choices which might necessarily have to be made between economic realities and good planning practices . Mr. Berg, with his memo of April 12 , had included all the data he saw as pertinent to the matter. Included was the March 21 memo from Mr. Fornell to the Council suggesting twelve different courses of actions , including re- siting of the lounge and/or bottle shop, for which Board mem- bers gave their preferences. Mr. Bjorklund said he saw No. 10 , the remodeling of the Apache lounge and chancing a reasonable lease in 19(')6 , as his first choice with No. 11 , remodeling the lounge now and enlarging the Stonehouse bottle shop in 1986 , his second choice. His third choice would- be No. 5, Wards Auto Store. Mr. Sopcinski favored No. 11, though he questioned whether the shopping center pro- vided the right atmosphere for a lounge. Mr. Klick also preferred No. 11 and No. 10 , which he felt should be considered as one. He also saw the viability of the Wards Auto Store, which seemed to be the choice of many residents he had questioned on the matter. Mr. Jones agreed, saying that if the City could buy the land, • that would be his first choice. If, however, as Mr. Fornell had said, none of the Apache property was for sale, he favored No. 2, the site south of Twin City Federal , where there would be access and parking for both bottle shop and lounge operations . He was definitely opposed to the Hedlund site. Mr. Marks said he is personally opposed to any liquor business , but realistically would decide on a site which would be economi- cally advantageous to the City with proper regard for the sur- rounding neighborhood. Mr. Rymarchick had no opinion at this time . Board members reacted to the Capital Improvements Program for School District No. 282 which had been submitted to them, as required by law, as part of comprehensive planning. Mr. Rymarchick questioned whether remodeling the high school for a middle school inclusion could be considered a capital improvement and a land use which should be addressed by the Planning Board. The Chairman ruled that the capital expenditures involved in the District No. 282 Capital Improvement Program are land use issues and therefore appropriate for Board consideration. Mr. Bjorklund stated his assessment of the plan as "an excellent one in spite of its deficiency in not addressing the costs of remodeling for the middle school , nor for the supporting structures" . The chairman replied by telling him that more specific information could not be provided at this time because of the great differ- ences in opinion as to the degree of separation necessary between the senior and middle school.