pm_000308 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Chair Klausing asked about "undue hardship" finding and definition of hardship. Chair Klausing asked if no Cub approval, are there no reasonable uses for the site? Tim Prinzen explained the difficult details of leasing the site. When a vacancy such as Homeplace remains, it creates a domino effect. The goal is to find a stabilizing anchor tenant. Member Mulder asked what is the percent occupancy (today 80%+,70-80% in late 80's, early 90's); were the lease covenants considered a "hardship" not of Bradley's doing. How much of Cub building will be back room or storage? (30%). Will Homeplace be torn down and an entirely new building replace it? (yes). Questions from the Public Tom O'Brien noted that no tenant has succeeded in the southeast corner. He requested no further expansion. More variances would be required for visibility. Bradley makes improvements only if it gets approvals. Ron Belcheski, 1391 Ryan, asked if there was a covenant or deed restriction prohibiting access to Ryan; if approved, how would deed restriction be changed? (depends on who the restrictive covenant ran in favor of). Lee Keller asked for required parking restrictions. Mr. Keller asked for the number of seats in the theatre. Laurence Schwie, 1383 Ryan, asked for details of holiday truck traffic and how to resolve it? Was Michael's Crafts denied use of the space? (no). Lee Keller asked if the Theatre asked for expansion into the Homeplace site? (no). Comments from the Public Lee Keller stated Har Mar is non-conforming. Is the variance in harmony with purpose and intent of Code? The proposal doesn't allow for parking and traffic lanes, separate from parking the lot. Keller's count is that 7,500 more trucks will use the site; more snow plowing; and more cars. Sharing the traffic and parking will conflict with Har Mar Theatre. Mr. Keller explained that parking is calculated at five per thousand s.t.; the Theatre requires one parking space for three seats. He suggested there is not sufficient parking for the site. The 1976 special use permit was described. There is not adequate parking. Mr. Keller suggested the Planning Commission asked the Council for further direction on "undue hardship, parking requirements and parking availability". He asked that his pictures and notes and 300 foot parking map be part of the record. Arlene Menke, 1861 Gluck Lane, stated she was in favor of Cub store addition. Cub would provide convenience and stability. She explained the loss of the Mall would have significant impact on the community. The issue is having a super market rather than lot coverage. Other malls exceed the 25% lot coverage too. She asked the Planning Commission to approve the plan. (she submitted the info for the record). Laurence Schwie submitted a petition with 190 petitioners in opposition. The 25% rule provides for parking, truck routes, pedestrian safety. John Sanocki, 1378 W. Ryan, stated the variance increases the size of the mall and increases traffic and parking problems. John Sanocki said there is a safety risk to residents and pedestrians. What will stop the next variance? The mall is pushed toward neighbors with blind corners. Coreen Gallmore, 1451 Eldridge, said the biggest problem is the theater. Grocery shoppers cannot be compared with theatre traffic. There being no further comment, Chair Klausing closed the hearing. Linda Fisher offered information to correct parking statistics. Member Wilke asked that parking be considered as part of the variance request.