My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
pm_000308
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
200x
>
2000
>
pm_000308
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 3:35:47 PM
Creation date
12/15/2004 8:03:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
3/8/2000
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Member Egli asked what other shopping centers meet the 25% requirement. Staff explained two of eight meet the <br />requirement. <br /> <br />Member Cunningham asked what would happen if the request was not approved; would they be able to use or expand the <br />space? <br /> <br />Member Mulder asked if the terminology for a property that exceeds the dimensional criteria of the site was a "non- <br />conforming site"? He asked what issues would allow for a building to become a "conforming" structure. Joel Jamnik stated <br />non-conforming uses may continue, but not expand. Member Mulder asked if the current uses would need a variance to <br />use the existing space. (No, if not enlarged. Intensification is not allowed without a variance as compared to common <br />repair or maintenance). <br /> <br />Member Rhody noted that parking was a concern - is it conforming? (yes, based on previous conditional use permit and <br />Council approval). <br /> <br />Member Egli asked when the City Council changed definitions, how many exceeded 25%? (no clear answer because <br />other centers have no boundary survey). <br /> <br />Member Egli asked how the interpretation change created non-conformity. Joel Jamnik noted there was no historical <br />record of how the Council previously interpreted the Code. The Council interpretation may have some flexibility over time <br />because of the difference in the governing body. <br /> <br />Member Wilke asked Thomas Paschke if Har Mar lost property to MnDot and Ramsey County. Thomas Paschke <br />responded that road easements did decrease usable lot area from both Snelling and County Road B. Member Mulder <br />asked if the road authority paid for the easements (no answer). <br /> <br />Linda Fisher and Tim Prinzen were present representing Bradley Operating Partnership. They explained the 67,956 s.t. of <br />grocery store and over 4,000 s.t. of enclosed loading space. Ms Fisher referred to the historical staff interpretation of the <br />site and the statistics of the request for coverage of the site. She explained the court case history regarding variances. <br /> <br />Three elements of hardship were described: reasonable use, unique circumstances, and essential character. Bradley's <br />reasonable use is a Cub Store. Securing an anchor in southeast corner is a key element of reasonable use. It is a <br />permitted use. <br /> <br />Ms. Fisher addressed the unique circumstances, which are different about the subject property such as: <br />1. Har Mar is unusually configured; <br />2. Orientation to streets, surrounding property development; <br />3. Green space buffers in existence; <br />4. 1987 Phase II was approved, 1995 Home Place expansion approved; <br />5. Vacancy of Mall Theatres long term viability; <br />6. Har Mar is an aging mall which may lost the market. <br /> <br />Tim Prinzen presented the "undue hardships". He noted Har Mar is very unique - experts asked why Har Mar was built <br />the way it was. The 54,000 s.t. Home Place site is unique - 70 possible tenants have been reviewed. These tenants <br />would split the space. He showed illustration of possible tenant arrangements. <br /> <br />Linda Fisher and Tim Prinzen described alternative design possibilities that are not practical for Cub or Bradley. <br /> <br />Linda Fisher described the essential character of the neighborhood and the protection from radical change in the <br />neighborhood proposed by the following improvements: <br />1. Improvements to ponding and drainage; <br />2. New fences and screening; <br />3. Noise reductions with new HVAC; <br />4. Snow management; <br />5. Parking improvements; <br />6. No access to neighborhood; <br />7. Traffic circulation and safety improvements; <br />8. No detriment to traffic peak hour movement; <br />9. Adequate parking; <br />10. Management, security, clean up of site; <br />11. Property value will not be negatively impacted; <br />12. New jobs (250), new grocery, bank, bakery, florist. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.