Laserfiche WebLink
Page 3 <br />Mr. Joseph Sroga, Sr., 3207 Stinson Boulevard, also questioned <br />whether the 9 parking spaces planned in front of the market would <br />be sufficient for both operations and reiterated the potential <br />to children who shop at the market. <br />Mr. Glockzin replied to these objections by saying he had run the <br />present Jiffy Market with only two robberies and had prevented his <br />store being used as a hangout for gangs. He said all market studies <br />bore out the feasibility of combining a grocery market with gas <br />service saying most of the 7-11 and Tom Thumb markets were going <br />that route. He said he had no intention of carrying on a gas war <br />with any other station and never contemplated keeping his store <br />or gas pumps open past 11:00 P.M. because of the threat of robberies. <br />He was surprised at the complaints regarding trash from his present <br />store saying they were the first that had been expressed to him. <br />Mr. Roger Sax,310 Endicott Building, St. Paul, an attorney for the <br />Schroeder Milk Company, said the proposal was in compliance with <br />the City's zoning ordinance and represented a legally permitted <br />usage. He said the owners had gone out of their way to meet any <br />possible objections to the proposal from the neighbors and he and <br />Mr. Claypool both contested the premise that only young hot rodders <br />use self service stations. He said it was not possible for this <br />proposal to solve all the problems which the neighbors have ex- <br />perienced for years with the other two gas stations on that corner. <br />Mr. Marks said he did not feel it was up to the Board to determine <br />whether the proposal was economically feasible but did feel it was <br />the responsibility of the Board to maintain the residential character <br />of St. Anthony while at the same time allowing the necessary mix of <br />commercial development. He said the services which are allowed do <br />build the character of a community and believed the plans for the <br />new market was a definite improvement of the old facility and would <br />be an asset to the neighborhood. He commended the proponents for the <br />excellent planning which had gone into the proposal. He was, however, <br />concerned that the gas dispensing operation might eventually result <br />in further blight of that corner. It was his contention that the <br />_lark Station across 33rd Avenue was clearly a violation of the <br />residential nature of that particular neighborhood and did not want <br />the Board to endorse a perpetuation of that violation. <br />Mr. Johnson agreed with him that the Board should not try to determine <br />whether the proposal was economically viable and he was impressed <br />with the improvements in the plans for curb cuts which he felt would <br />provide better traffic control. However, though the proposal seemed <br />to meet the letter of the law, he did not feel the Board should <br />endorse a heavier commercial use for that predominately residential <br />area. <br />Mr. Hiebel said the proposal met all the marketing indications he <br />had seen and said a mixture of residential and commercial are necessary <br />to support any muncipality. He said the character of the neighborhood <br />had been established a long time ago and problems experienced with <br />commercial in the area were to a great extent the responsibility of <br />another municipality. He also observed that there were approximately <br />19 of the signers of the petition who live on the west side of Stinson. <br />