Laserfiche WebLink
1 Arlene Menke, 186 1 Gluck Lane, stated she was in favor of Cub store addition. <br />2 Cub would provide convenience and stability. She explained the loss of the Mall <br />3 would have significant impact on the community. The issue is having <br />4 supermarket rather than lot coverage. Other malls exceed the 25% lot coverage <br />s too. She asked the Planning Commission to approve the plan. (she submitted the <br />6 info for the record). <br />s Laurence Schwie submitted a petition with 190 petitioners in opposition. The <br />9 25% rule provides parking, truck routes, pedestrian safety. <br />io <br />t t John Sanocki, 1378 W. Ryan, stated the variance increases the size of the mall <br />i2 and increases traffic and parking problems. <br />13 <br />i4 John Sanocki said there is a safety risk to residents and pedestrians. What will <br />i s stop the next variance? The mall is pushed toward neighbors with blind comers. <br />16 <br />i� Coreen Gallmore, 145 1 Eldridge, said the biggest problem is the theater. Grocery <br />i s shoppers cannot be compared with theatre traffic. <br />19 <br />2o There being no further comment, Chair Klausing closed the hearing. <br />2i <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />2� <br />2s <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />Linda fisher offered information to correct parking statistics. <br />Member Wilke asked that parking be considered as part of the variance request. <br />Member Mulder explained that the parking issue has been decided previously. <br />Joel Jamnik noted that parking needs have been satisfied based on staff review. <br />Chair Klausing explained his focus on undue hardship, altering the locality and <br />economic impacts. The undue hardship is not demonstrated. <br />32 Member Rhody stated that he felt the applicant has met the requirements and <br />33 definition of undue hardship. The mall is viable with a larger store. The unique <br />34 set of circumstances was not created by the applicant, but by the history of the <br />3s mall. The economic vitality of the mall is at stake. <br />36 <br />3� Chair Klausing asked Member Rhody for details on undue hardship and <br />3 s economics. Member Rhody noted that the mall would not be feasible without <br />39 Phase II of the mall. <br />40 <br />4i Member Mulder noted that undue hardship was not met by the applicant. The <br />42 original add-on space was not big enough, now must get bigger. Everything <br />43 approved in 1987 and 1995 could still be done and could be reasonable uses of the <br />44 site today. <br />45 <br />Planning Commission Minutes, March 8, 2000 Page 5 of 10 <br />