PCMin_85Feb4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 • PAGE 3 Member Wallin asked Mr. Labalestra how could the Planning Commission MEMBER and City Council insure the financial success of the project. Mr. WALLIN/ Labalestra indicated that anyone is welcome to look at their financial LABALESTRA records. They have been in business for 28 years. Mr. Labalestra feels that their plans are consistent with the character LABALESTRA of their business, consistent with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the existing zoning ordinance, and consistent with the guidelines for tax exempt financing. Ted Meyer, 1710 St. Marys, spoke on behalf of Scheme E as being far from TED MEYER, perfect but workable. Felt the Labalestra's plan was going backwards 1710 ST. since they initially asked for rezoning of the Croft property and with a MARYS fifty foot addition so the Croft property being used for parking would support that. Now, they are requesting not only the entire Croft property but the vacation of St. Mary's to support the 50 foot addition. He felt this wholly unacceptable. Scheme E retains the house on the Croft property which would significantly reduce the impact on the residential neighbor- hood. The neighborhood is prepared to make substantial sacrifices; mainly by allowing some parking on the Croft property and allowing partial cul-de-sacing of the street. He felt the issues are being confused-- the Lido expansion is irrelevant. The proposal that should be addressed is what should be done with the Croft property (should it be a parking lot or a house) and whether St. Mary's should be cul-de-saced either partially • or fully so part of the property could be turned into parking. There is no guarantee who is going to own the property in the future; therefore, it it unreasonable to think in terms of what the Lido Restaurant needs for that property. The issue is, in terms of that site which is a commercial lot, what makes sense, what is a orderly reasonable development what is in the best interests of the entire community. He is concerned about what is going to happen in the future and what kind of a facility will that site support and what kind of parking needs does it have. Scheme E is reasonable. Further intrusion into the residential neighborhood is simply not warranted under the circumstances. Member Black asked Mr. Labalestra is Scheme E were possible for them at .MEMBER BLACK/ this time to which Mr. .Labalestra answered that it was not. Member Black LABALESTRA then asked if shared parking could be arranged with the Hermes, would then Scheme E be possible to which Mr. Labalestra answered that the door has been closed since it was not realistic. Black pointed out and Wallin clarified that what the Planning Commission BLACK/ needed to address was approval or disapproval of the conditional use WALLIN request. Scheme E is not up for consideration. Wallin asked if the Lido Restaurant were willing to accept the conditional WALLIN/ use being personal to the Labalestra family such that it could not be LABALESTRA transferred to a purchaser at a future time. Mr. Labalestra indicated that they would be unwilling to accept the conditional use as being personal due to the fact that it would diminish the fair market value of the property. •