pm_980114 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The City encouraged library expansion ot the north instead of intruding to the east. The library is three stories in height and of a commercial nature. Some of the neighbors sold property to the County, pushing the library to the east. Mr. Nelson stated: 1) the staff report concludes there are impacts; but no facts ? support that, 2) no market study was needed because the developer knows the ? market, 3) the staff reference to State Farm is not germain to the Everest site. Mr. Nelson stated the Comprehensive Plan policy conditions do not suggest preservation of the neighborhood or four houses. The four houses do not relate to other homes in the area, nor do they have a common design element. This Everest proposal is an opportunity to add orderly transition and service. Mr. Nelson noted (in staff report comparison) that an office would benefit from the same adjoining uses as the planned residential uses. He also compared the 1985 traffic study with current situation, noting traffic ?? declined since 1985. There is no Hamline pass-through traffic according to Nelson. The financial comparison does not illustrate the total benefit to the site. The Everest proposal could be a PUD for Limited Business use and would be appropriate according to Nelson. Nelson disagrees with the finding that the proposal is not in harmony with comprehensive plan. Nelson said the project will have no domino effect. No information is available to indicate impacts on neighborhood. Chairperson Wietecki asked why Everest did not participate in the comprehensive plan process except for the Episcopal Housing Proposal (No response). Member Mulder asked for clarification regarding the Everest handout on commercial property adjacent to residential uses. Should all these areas be treated similarly to the Everest request? Chairperson Wietecki explained regulatory and legislative authorities. Public comments: Leon Leopold, 2263 Dellwood, had distributed a petition opposed to the project previously and stated he was opposed to the project because: 1) changes character of neighborhood; 11