pm_000308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Egli asked what other shopping centers meet the 25% requirement. Staff explained two of eight meet the requirement. Member Cunningham asked what would happen if the request was not approved; would they be able to use or expand the space? Member Mulder asked if the terminology for a property that exceeds the dimensional criteria of the site was a "non- conforming site"? He asked what issues would allow for a building to become a "conforming" structure. Joel Jamnik stated non-conforming uses may continue, but not expand. Member Mulder asked if the current uses would need a variance to use the existing space. (No, if not enlarged. Intensification is not allowed without a variance as compared to common repair or maintenance). Member Rhody noted that parking was a concern - is it conforming? (yes, based on previous conditional use permit and Council approval). Member Egli asked when the City Council changed definitions, how many exceeded 25%? (no clear answer because other centers have no boundary survey). Member Egli asked how the interpretation change created non-conformity. Joel Jamnik noted there was no historical record of how the Council previously interpreted the Code. The Council interpretation may have some flexibility over time because of the difference in the governing body. Member Wilke asked Thomas Paschke if Har Mar lost property to MnDot and Ramsey County. Thomas Paschke responded that road easements did decrease usable lot area from both Snelling and County Road B. Member Mulder asked if the road authority paid for the easements (no answer). Linda Fisher and Tim Prinzen were present representing Bradley Operating Partnership. They explained the 67,956 s.t. of grocery store and over 4,000 s.t. of enclosed loading space. Ms Fisher referred to the historical staff interpretation of the site and the statistics of the request for coverage of the site. She explained the court case history regarding variances. Three elements of hardship were described: reasonable use, unique circumstances, and essential character. Bradley's reasonable use is a Cub Store. Securing an anchor in southeast corner is a key element of reasonable use. It is a permitted use. Ms. Fisher addressed the unique circumstances, which are different about the subject property such as: 1. Har Mar is unusually configured; 2. Orientation to streets, surrounding property development; 3. Green space buffers in existence; 4. 1987 Phase II was approved, 1995 Home Place expansion approved; 5. Vacancy of Mall Theatres long term viability; 6. Har Mar is an aging mall which may lost the market. Tim Prinzen presented the "undue hardships". He noted Har Mar is very unique - experts asked why Har Mar was built the way it was. The 54,000 s.t. Home Place site is unique - 70 possible tenants have been reviewed. These tenants would split the space. He showed illustration of possible tenant arrangements. Linda Fisher and Tim Prinzen described alternative design possibilities that are not practical for Cub or Bradley. Linda Fisher described the essential character of the neighborhood and the protection from radical change in the neighborhood proposed by the following improvements: 1. Improvements to ponding and drainage; 2. New fences and screening; 3. Noise reductions with new HVAC; 4. Snow management; 5. Parking improvements; 6. No access to neighborhood; 7. Traffic circulation and safety improvements; 8. No detriment to traffic peak hour movement; 9. Adequate parking; 10. Management, security, clean up of site; 11. Property value will not be negatively impacted; 12. New jobs (250), new grocery, bank, bakery, florist.