Laserfiche WebLink
To: The Falcon Heights Planning Comission 6/27105 <br />i From: Tom Quam (Co-owner) <br />Residence: 1867 Larpenteur Ave. W. <br />This memo is written in response to the application for remodeling and adding to the <br />existing building located at 187 Larpenteur just to the west of where my daughter Jady <br />lives. I attended an informational meeting at city hall last week describing the scope of <br />the project. <br />At the end of the meeting, I voiced my objection to the project . Out of all of the people <br />attending the meeting, my property will feel the impact of this proposal more so than any <br />other property. I believe it will have a negative impact on my property value for the <br />following reasons. <br />Smells will emit from the operation even though the owners have assured us the cooking <br />odors will be neutralized before being released into the air. <br />Noise will be a factor. The restaurant will be open until 10:00PM Friday and Sat. night. <br />Workers will probably leave 1 or 2 hours after that. My daughter's house is about 15 feet <br />from the existing building.Her renter has already voiced concern about the possibility of <br />the restaurant going in. (Bedroom windows are on the west side of the house.) <br />There will be very limited parking on the property. With 4 to 8 employees working at <br />any given point in time, they will be required to park off premise. During the meeting, <br />someone stated the owners may try to use parking facilities down the street at the credit <br />union. What if they don't attain approval? Or, initially are granted use of the lot, but in <br />the future approval is denied for some reason? <br />Lighting will be somewhat of a problem in the evening. There is a very high likeliehood <br />there will be a noise problem with car horns, noisy mufflers etc. <br />Based on my observations during the meeting, it appeared to me that the City staff had <br />bent over backwards to make this proposal work although, when I raised this issue, I was <br />assured they were not advocating the plan. Heather stated that normally, if there were <br />more than 2 variances required, it was very difficult to obtain city approval. She further <br />stated this proposal required 7 variances! The staff also explained that this property was <br />a difficult piece to develop because of size. I agree with that assessment however I must <br />ask the question, is that the city's problem? <br />r~ <br />~~ <br />33 <br />