My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 07191983
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
1983
>
PL MINUTES 07191983
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/30/2015 6:08:58 PM
Creation date
12/30/2015 6:08:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
21
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1983
SP Name
PL MINUTES 07191983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
-8- <br /> —� which would justify granting either a conditional use permit or the <br /> \ requested variance for parking. He perceives the only hardship the <br /> restaurant proprietor would- experience was not being able to squeeze <br /> a larger cafe on an inadequately sized lot. <br /> Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Jones <br /> to recommend Council denial of requests from Kin Lun Kwong for a <br /> conditional use permit, a parking space variance and rezoning of <br /> Lot 2, Block 6,. Murray Heights Addition (2700 Coolidge Street N.E. ) <br /> which would permit the expansion of the Good Luck Cafe from a 765 <br /> square foot structure to 2700 square feet as proposed, finding that <br /> the three conditions which must be satisfied for the conditional <br /> use permit and the variance had not been met in the proposal, and <br /> for the following .additional reasons: <br /> (1) The City Comprehensive Plan indicated- there -is a conflict of <br /> land use in this particular area of. the City and recommended <br /> that future land use should not be commercial. <br /> (2) Existing businesses in the same neighborhood are overutilizing <br /> on-street parking now. <br /> (3) The Metropolitan Transit Commission also overutilizes all <br /> available street parking in the immediate vicinity of the cafe . <br /> (4) Adequate snow storage was not addressed in the proposal. <br /> (.5) Adequate screening or adequacy of existing screening was not <br /> addressed in the proposal . <br /> (6) There is a strong possibility that the property values of homes <br /> to the southwest, northwest and north side of the subject <br /> property might be adversely affected by the proposal. <br /> (7) There was a strong indication that the traffic in the adjoining <br /> alley would be dangerously increased. <br /> (8) Onsite loading, employee parking, and storage of garbage had <br /> not .been adequately addressed. in the proposal. <br /> (9) The applicant had not provided .adequate site .plans including <br /> landscaping plans . <br /> (10) There was a significant departure from the standards which have <br /> been established in the community for commercial usage with <br /> the proposed pvosision of 22 parking spaces where 85 are required <br /> by City Ordinance. <br /> (11) Almost all available parking spaces provided on the site are <br /> required for the existing building. <br /> (12). Testimony from the neighbors indicated a poor history of building <br />;` • and land maintenance and weed and odor control with the existing <br /> business. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.