pf08-008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� ^ The Property is Not Effectively "Self-Regulating". A number of the members of the Planning Commission employed a laissez-faire logic, dismissing this property as "self-regulating" in nature—i.e., that the size of the property would prevent any truly intensive uses of the property, such as would be desired by a franchise food establishment. Those members misperceived the conditions on the ground. Immediately to the north, at the intersection of Roselawn and Lexington, sits a former convenience store, now used as the office of a real estate agent. Without delving into the personal details of the current occupant, there is reason to believe that this property may come available in the next couple of years, if not sooner. These two buildings, together, would command a strong position on a good thoroughfare. As with the development of the professional building across the street, the City should see fit to develop this portion of the intersection in a sensible manner. Rezoning 1901 Lexington Avenue to B-1B fails to do that: it opens these properties up, with no further rezoning required, to a variety of food establishments, including those with take-out windows (e.g., Chili's To-Go) that could fit the profile of this property, with adequate parking. This would substantially change the nature of the intersection, working at odds with the Comprehensive Plan for the city's development. Inadequate Consideration to Relevant Factors I must express disappointment that the proposed action has moved forward with a level of reasoning and evidence that fails to meet even the minimal standards necessary for a quasi- legislative decision such as a Rezoning or a quasi judicial action such as a Conditional Use Permit. The decisions of this state's courts emphasize that governmental bodies must supply a record containing a"clearly articulated rationale" (Earthburners, Inc. v. County of Carlton, 513 N.W. 2d 460, 463 [Minn. 1994]) and must "have the reasons for its decision recorded or reduced to writing in more than just a conclusory fashion. By failing to do so, it runs the risk of not having its decision sustained." (Hoon v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W. 2d 409 [Minn. 1981]). Simply put, the record given on behalf of this proposed action is inadequate. No study of traffic has been performed. ➢ The only thought given to traffic on the record—all that has been given to me by the City planning staff in reply to my request for all documentation—consists of two graphs from the January 1991 issue of T� Generation, a publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. This regression was used to project the possible traffic flow to the area resulting from fast food restaurant and puts only one fact into the record: the likely generation of 750 car trips per weekday per 1000 sq.ft. of floor space in a typical fast food restaurant. This non-specific regression data from the early 1990s, which at the Planning Commission meeting the City's staff admitted was too outdated to consider the traffic impact of B-1B uses such as coffee shops, fails to take account of significant changes in the class of Restaurant businesses that may seek to locate at this property, such as the emergence of Starbucks-like intense uses. The only traffic analysis given to this fact at the P�anning Commission meeting was that a fast food restaurant's expected traffic of 750 cars per weekday would be a"small addition" to the existing traffic along Lexington Avenue.