Laserfiche WebLink
3.10 The proposed store, if approved, would be required to adhere to new site <br />improvements regarding 24-hour operations, including screening, landscaping, <br />lighting, building materials, enclosed loading docks, and others. <br />3.11 Staff has provided a copy of the Commercial Areas section of the Roseville <br />Comprehensive Plan (Attachment �. <br />3.12 Possible alternatives to the variance that would allow the proposal to be built <br />within the existing "footprint" of the building include: <br />A. Reduce the size of the proposed Cub Food. <br />B. Create a multiple level Cub Food. <br />C. Rearrange tenant locations within the mall to <br />the proposed Cub Food into the mall. <br />D. Reduce the size of the existing mall footprint <br />compensate for the Cub Food "footprint". <br />allow more space to expand <br />and/ or out buildings to <br />3.13 There are some unusual physical problems with this 40 year-old shopping center <br />and there are also some compelling reasons for attempting to extend its life as a <br />productive part of the neighborhood and the community. These include: <br />A. <br />B. <br />C. <br />D. <br />E. <br />New ordinances have been adopted to deal with the 24-hour service <br />issues. <br />Grocery stores have been an "anchor" part of Har-Mar Mall in the past. <br />Bradley is proposing re-introduction of grocery retailing as a long term <br />and stable "anchor" for the shopping center. <br />Few other uses have survived in this location to create the retailing anchor <br />necessary for long-term commercial property stability. <br />Should Har-Mar again begin the slow decline in value as it did in the late <br />80's and early 90's, it is conceivable that decline also affects adjoining <br />neighborhood properties. <br />4.0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ESTABLISH FINDINGS <br />4.1 Staff recommends use of an outline, similar to the following possible findings, for <br />determining whether there is an "undue hardship" significant enough to <br />approve the variance. <br />4.2 The proposal (does/does not) constitute a reasonable use of the property.. .. <br />4.3 The hardship situation was (was not) created by the applicant (Bradley) or <br />existed prior to the applicant.. . <br />4.4 The unique physical features or situations within the proposal that justify a <br />variance include . . . <br />PF3 194 — RCA (032700) Page 3 of 5 <br />