CCMin_85Feb13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ~ FEBRUARY 13, 1985 ~ 4~~ PAGE 6 Lolita Keck, 1776 St. Mary's, stated that granting the conditional LOLITA use request does not guarantee the Lido's success. She questioned KECK their timing, type of establishment, entertainment, ratio of liquor 1776 ST. to food, discrepancy in seating numbers. She felt the City was MARYS taking abet with the Lido which could end with losing after vacating St. Mary's, condemning the Hermes alley, and providing Tax Increment financing. Ms. Keck felt the City should not be subsiding construction, allowing destruction of the Croft home and gardens and still wind up with a half completed commercial area. Dr. Eggert replied that Council should not consider approval of the conditional use unless they understand the other steps. Rod VondeLinde, 1734 St. Mary's, said the Planning Commission was ROD not confused when they denied the conditional use, and he felt VONDELINDE the Commission was concerned that Falcon Heights is a residential 1734 ST. community and wanted to keep it that way. He indicated that the MARYS neighborhood is unified regarding the Lido matter, there is a scare in the neighborhood. He felt the conditional use would not affect the decision makers and asked that Council consider how they would feel. Mr. VondeLinde's young son commented on children's balls going into the Croft lot and into the street. Walt McCoy, 1746 St. Mary's, explained that he is an FHA Appraiser WALT MC COY and from his experience residences next to businesses have less value 1746 ST. because there is less appeal to prospective buyers. He felt that the MARYS fact that the Croft lot faces St. Mary's, it would lower real estate values more than the present business facing Larpenteur. Mr. McCoy stated he was opposed to the conditional use being ranted and removal of the Croft house. Pete Navtzeny, 1720 St. Mary's stated he knows the Lido well and has PETE NAVTZENY no objection to the business, however, he did object to changing 1720 ST. residential to commercial and felt the residential property will MARYS decrease in value. He went on record as being opposed to parking on the Croft property. Attorney Fred Kueppers, representing Mr. and Mrs. Norbert Hermes, FRED KUEPPERS' commented on the Hermes' unwillingness to join in shared parking. ATTORNEY He felt they have good reasons and were not refusing due to animosity FOR MR. AND or stubbornness. He stated that the parking on the Hermes property MRS. NORBERT just meets what is required and by sharing they would have less than HERMES the required parking. If Hermes should sell or change use, the parking could become significant. He felt the Hermes reluctance is well founded. Mr. Jueppers then commented on the fact that Mr. Labalestra needs use of the. Croft property for parking, which is not a soft use, but full utilization of the property. He also questioned what the community would get for the deal in view of the Tax Increment Financing, and stressed the fact that the neighborhood, Planner John Uban, and Planning Commission thinks it does not work. He suggested that Council deny the conditional use and felt it was reasonable to deny the request. Randy Gustafson, 1775 St. Mary's, felt there were too many "maybes", RANDY uncertainty regarding what will happen to the street, parking on GUSTAFSON, the street. He felt id did not make sense to approve the request when 1775 ST, the Planning Commission denied it and the ordinance does not allow it. MARYS