|
<br />City of Rose vi lIe - Planning Commission
<br />
<br />Page 4 of 8
<br />
<br />Mr. Keller explained that parking is calculated at five per thousand s.f.; the Theatre requires one parking
<br />space for three seats, He suggested there is not sufficient parking for the site, The 1976 special use
<br />permit was described, There is not adequate parking.
<br />
<br />Mr. Keller suggested the Planning Commission asked the Council for further direction on "undue
<br />hardship, parking requirements and parking availability". He asked that his pictures and notes and 300
<br />foot parking map be part of the record.
<br />
<br />Arlene Menke, 1861 Gluck Lane, stated she was in favor of Cub store addition, Cub would provide
<br />convenience and stability, She explained the loss of the Mall would have significant impact on the
<br />community, The issue is having a super market rather than lot coverage, Other malls exceed the 25%
<br />lot coverage too, She asked the Planning Commission to approve the plan, (she submitted the info for
<br />the record),
<br />
<br />Laurence Schwie submitted a petition with 190 petitioners in opposition. The 25% rule provides for
<br />parking, truck routes, pedestrian safety,
<br />
<br />John Sanocki, 1378 W. Ryan, stated the variance increases the size of the mall and increases traffic
<br />and parking problems,
<br />
<br />John Sanocki said there is a safety risk to residents and pedestrians, What will stop the next variance?
<br />The mall is pushed toward neighbors with blind corners,
<br />
<br />Coreen Gallmore, 1451 Eldridge, said the biggest problem is the theater, Grocery shoppers cannot be
<br />compared with theatre traffic,
<br />
<br />There being no further comment, Chair Klausing closed the hearing,
<br />
<br />Linda Fisher offered information to correct parking statistics.
<br />
<br />Member Wilke asked that parking be considered as part of the variance request
<br />
<br />Member Mulder explained that the parking issue has been decided previously, Joel Jamnik noted that
<br />parking needs have been satisfied based on staff review.
<br />
<br />Chair Klausing explained his focus on undue hardship, altering the locality and economic impacts, The
<br />undue hardship is not demonstrated,
<br />
<br />Member Rhody stated that he felt the applicant has met the requirements and definition of undue
<br />hardship, The mall is viable with a larger store, The unique set of circumstances was not created by the
<br />applicant, but by the history of the mall. The economic vitality of the mall is at stake.
<br />
<br />Chair Klausing asked Member Rhody for details on undue hardship and economics. Member Rhody
<br />noted that the mall would not be feasible without Phase II of the mall.
<br />
<br />Member Mulder agreed that undue hardship was not met by the applicant The original add-on space
<br />was not big enough, now must get bigger, Everything approved in 1987 and 1995 could still be done
<br />and could be reasonable uses of the site today,
<br />
<br />Member Cunningham asked for details of traffic into the mall; 5,000 movements per day. Thomas
<br />Paschke explained 5,500 - 6,500 trips per day are typical for a Cub, Bradley has made the case for the
<br />hardship based on failure of other stores in this site, Cub is readily visible and recognizable and can
<br />survive on this site, At Pavilion Place, grocery and theatres are at opposite ends of mall. Member
<br />Cunningham said he could not support the variance based on impacts to health, safety, welfare, truck
<br />
<br />http://www.ci.rosevilIe.mn.us/counciVplanning/minutes/pm0003 08 .hun
<br />
<br />6120/00
<br />
|