PCMin_85Feb4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 4, 1985 PAGE 5 • Member Black also felt that using the strip of land from the Croft lot would turn that property into something less than a single family house in character with the neighborhood. He respects the Labalestras and their business and MEMBER felt that they know what their business needs, but he does not favor the BLACK conditional use permit because it is too much of an intrusion into the neighborhood and the benefit to the City is not matched by the intrustion. Does not like using the whole Croft lot for parking as requested in the conditional .use permit and it is not appropriate. Has a concern over the use of tax increment financing in the removal of a single family home for the benefit of a business and it is not an appropriate use of .public funds. Member Olson spoke strongly on the superior aesthetic quality of the MEMBER Labalestra plan. One of the things the City was concerned about in the OLSON comprehensive plan was that we keep merging commercial and residential. Scheme E turns the Croft property into. a very unattractive lot and house because of its proximity to the parking spaces. The Labalestra plan uses the .whole lot for their business but there is a definite division between the residential and the commercial development which purposes substantial screening. The City was very concerned about that in their comprehensive plan--all over the city there is no substantial division between commercial and residential. Member Northrup could not approve the conditional use because going from MEMBER residential to commercial is too big a jump. and cannot agree with the NORTHRUP philosophy of using tax increment financing for the project. • Member Wallin felt the charge of the Planning Commission is looking out MEMBER for the best interests of the City as a whole, which has to embody the WALLIN business interests and also take into consideration the interests of the surrounding residents. Regardless of what the City would like to be, Falcon Heights is a predominately residential community--there needs to be some balancing. The request that the Lido Restaurant is making at this point is too one sided. There is substantial encroachment into an R-1 area; it needs vacation of St. Marys in order to make it a viable plan as well. Also, in the future. there will be a possible condemnation request over the alley issue. He feels it is insufficient just to be voting on the conditional use when the other issues he previously mentioned have not been addressed. Also does not like the idea of snowballing because there are several steps that need to be taken and would like to see them all in one comprehensive package. Member Wallin also sees an unwillingness to make the kind of commitment that might help with the approval (personal covenants that would run with the family). Reacts negatively to a large amount of screening, which would need to be tall, because it would create a d ark south side on the Meyer's property. He looks at the project as to how the City would benefit and the most immediate is taken away through tax increment financing. There is not enough compromise to make it more palatable for his approval of the conditional use. Member Wallin then moved, seconded by Member Mead, that the conditional DISAPPROVAL use request be disapproved. Upon a vote being taken, the following OF CONDITION- voted in favor thereof: Northrop, Stefanson, Mead, Trent-Sullivan and AL USE REQUES • Black and the following voted against the same: Olson. Motion carried. FOR LIDO RESTAURANT