|
<br />there may be a public service impact.
<br />b) that the proposed request/project will impact parks, streets and other public facilities for the following
<br />reasons: insufficient data regarding public safety concerns due to the increase (3.5%) in traffic entering
<br />and exiting the site at the four access/conflict points in an area (historically) known to have a need for
<br />accident reduction. There will be an impact on the streets and other public facilities and services.
<br />c) that the proposed request/project does not have a compatible site plan, internal circulation, landscape
<br />and structure, with contiguous properties for the following reasons: The increased traffic and more intense
<br />use of the site will increase internal circulation conflicts. Such internal circulation concerns related to the
<br />site plan will impact both traffic and pedestrian motion. Information related to deliveries, optimum site
<br />design if fully redeveloped, and entry/exit points do not support the argument that there will not be
<br />additional internal circulation problems. Rather, the site plan before us is not significantly changed from
<br />the existing site plan, circulation conditions are not improved, but increased; therefore the use requested
<br />is not compatible with the existing site.
<br />d) that the proposed request/project will impact the market value of contiguous properties for the following
<br />reasons: Reduced market values are not a criteria that appears to be impacted by the proposal. However,
<br />marginalized property value increases in comparison to other properties adjacent to a liquor store, may
<br />exist. Additionally, insufficient data is available to show that market value of other similar uses in the
<br />"buyers shed" will not be harmed.
<br />e) that the proposed request/project will impact the general public health, safety and welfare for the
<br />following reasons: Public health, safety, and welfare concerns have been expressed, yet the data is lacking
<br />to establish precise conflicts with the proposed use. More data may be appropriate, although, there do
<br />exist public policy concerns relating the separation of liquor sales from other products.
<br />f) that the proposed project is not compatible with the City's Comprehensive Plan for the following
<br />reasons: The data, relating to use and traffic counts, is inconsistent between experts. Accordingly, the
<br />proposed use and impacts are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Specifically, the comprehensive
<br />plan estimates and data regarding capacity and acceptable or unacceptable traffic level of service (grade
<br />"D") is inconsistent with the data and assumptions contained in the report prepared on behalf of the
<br />applicant.
<br />
<br />Member Stone said there is a public policy debate in the legislature regarding liquor in grocery stores - is this a
<br />circumvention of the law?
<br />Member Ipsen asked the Commission to evaluate "a-f".
<br />Chair Traynor noted that if any of these findings are met, it is appropriate to deny based on health, safety, welfare,
<br />traffic and congestion.
<br />Member Blank supported the Stone motion. Member Peper supported the Stone motion, preferring to have other
<br />SuperAmerica information to evaluate.
<br />
<br />Roll call:
<br />Ayes: Blank, Peper, Bakeman, Stone, Ipsen, Traynor.
<br />Nays: None
<br />Motion to recommend denial is approved 6-0.
<br />
<br />....10 Minute Break....
<br />(During the break after action was taken on item 6a, Rose Variance, Chair Traynor was approached by an adjacent
<br />property owner to the Rose property who was opposed the request and was prepared to present his
<br />concerns/opposition to the Commission.) After reconvening the meeting, Chair Traynor asked the Commission to
<br />reconsider the Rose Variance request in light of this information and due to the fact that the item was moved-up on
<br />the agenda.
<br />
<br />Motion: Chair Traynor moved, second by Member Bakeman, to reopen the Rose Variance hearing and to
<br />rescind the motion of approval, pending further input from residents within 350 feet, and continue the
<br />hearing to the Commission's February 4, 2004, with full notice being given, and to recommend to the
<br />Council an extension of the 60-day review deadline for an additional 60 days.
<br />
<br />Ayes: 6
<br />Nays: 0
<br />Motion carried 6-0.
<br />
<br />8a Meadow View Homes Sketch Plan Review, 2550 Hamline Avenue.
<br />
<br />Mr. Paschke explained the proposal. Jeff Cruz, Meadow View Homes, has prepared a redevelopment proposal for the property
<br />at 2550 Hamline Avenue that would create eight one-level town home units. The proposed project requires approval of a
<br />Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Subdivision Plat, and a Planned Unit Development.
<br />
<br />The 62,480 sq. ft. (1.43 acre) parcel included an aging home, which was removed last year shortly after Mr. Cruz purchased the
<br />property. Since that date, Mr. Cruz has met with the Development Review Committee (DRC) and the City Planner to review his
<br />
|