CC PACKET 03131984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-8- 1 1 . The City Comprehensive Plan indicated there is a conflict. of land 2 use in this particular area of the City and recommended future land. 3 use should not be commercial . 4 5 2. Existing businesses in the same neighborhood are overutilizing 6 on-street parking. 7 8 3 . The Metropolitan Transit Commission also overutilizes the available 9 street parking in the immediate vicinity of the cafe. 10 11 4 . Adequate snow storage was not addressed in the proposal . 12 13 5. The proposal did not provide for future screening of the restaurant 14 from the residential neighborhood or address the adequacy of the 15 existing screening. 16 17 6 . The perception was that it was possible that the property values 18 of homes to the west, northwest, and north side of the subject 19 property might be adversely affected by the proposal . 20 21 7. There was an indication that the expansion might result in a 22 dangerous increase in traffic down the adjoining alley . 23 24 8. A satisfactory method of storing garbage had not been proposed. 25 26 9 . Adequate site plans, including landscaping plans, had still not 27 been presented for the proposed expansion. • 28 2910 . Many of the parking spaces provided on the site are too close to 30 adjacent homes and a parking space variance would be required for 31 the proposed building. 32 3311. Significant written and oral testimony from the neighbors both 34 times the proposal had been made, indicate there is a poor history 35 of building and land maintenance , as well as weed and odor con- 36 trol, with the existing business and there was strong opposition 37 demonstrated to making the proposed zoning change or granting the 38 necessary variances . 39 40 Motion carried unanimously.- 41 42 Chair Zawislak noted the shopping center sign is being used to advertize 43 merchants in the center and suggested the City use this method of 44 getting some recognition for the new liquor warehouse. 45 46 The' Commission had tabled finalizing the allocation of Year X Community 47 Development Block Grant funds so the Manager could research several 48 suggestions members had made . Mr. Childs had responded to each sug- 49 gestion in , his March 30th memorandum indicating county staff had per- 50 ceived that none of them would appear to meet funding requirement of 51 serving only low and -moderate income residents . 52 •53 Commissioner Jones had requested the Manager,: find out what sidewalks. 54 along Stinson and 37th Avenue N.E. would cost and Mr. Childs said he 55 had been told there would be 942 feet of sidewalk at $10 a running