2000_0327_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� Member Cunningham asked for details of traffic into the mall; 5,000 movements 2 per day. Thomas Paschke explained 5,500 — 6,500 trips per day are typical for a 3 Cub. Bradley has made the case for the hardship based on failure of other stores 4 in this site. Cub is readily visible and recognizable and can survive on this site. s At Pavilion Place, grocery and theatres are at opposite ends of ma1L Member 6 Cunningham said he couldn't support variance on impacts to health, safety, � welfare, truck traffic, etc.. 9 Member Egli state the uniqueness is not a problem. She supports the variance to 1 o improve the conditions on the site, the traffic along the east side, and traffic near t t theatre. She is concerned about failure of mall and changes in essential character 12 of the neighborhood. Har Mar is not platted property, and has lost lot coverage, t 3 and has other unique residential constraints. A grocery store is a reasonable use; 14 it would include covered docks. 15 16 Member Wilke explained his concerns with traffic. If the variance is granted, 1� significant improvement can be made to the mall and neighborhoods. He is 1 g supporting the variance. 19 20 2i 22 23 24 25 Member Olson stated her concern for increases in truck traffic integrated with customer traffic. She will not vote in favor. Member Rhody said the City worked hard to prepare 24 hour standards; should focus on the variance. 26 Member Mulder asked if this was appropriate if not this site plan. The Planning 2� Commission should refrain from hypothesizing on economic factors. The land 2 g use is the topic, should it be expanded — is the core issue. 29 3o Member Olson noted larger building impacts the parking and traffic. These issues 3 i cannot be separated. 32 33 Chair Klausing suggested focusing on the provisions of case law, and the proposal 34 meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance. There is a difference between 3 s homeowner and commercial property owners. The lot coverage intent was to 3 6 prohibit over-development of sites. The City could revisit the ordinance rather 3 � than grant variance. 38 3 9 Member Olson moved, Chair Klausing seconded, to recommend denial of the 4o variance request for Bradley Operating Limited Partnership based on the 4 � following findings: 42 43 o It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the 44 request by Bradley Operating Limited Partnership for a variance, 4s PF3 194, from Section 1006.02C (Lot Coverage) and 1011.02 46 (Non-Conforming Uses: Existing Structures or Uses) permitting an Planning Commission Minutes, March 8, 2000 Page 6 of 10