Loading...
1979 11 14 .n We call the Planning Commission to order for this evening, November 14,1979. Oath of Office. Thomas Hamilton I, Thomas Hamilton do solemly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United states, the Constitution of the state of Minnesota and that I will faithfully, justifully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of Planning Commission Member of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota to the best of my judgement and ability, so help me God. Roman Roos Bob, where are we at reviewing the C In boundaries? Bob Waibel It was scheduled to be taken up again this evening, but we've deferred it to another meeting. To investigate specifically the types of land use that we discussed the last time. of the 2nd week of Sept. 1979 So moved and 2nd that the minutes/be approved. Walter Thompson Clark Horn Walter Thompson e Roman Roos I heard that Pat Swenson was hired for the vacant Council position, I told her that I hoped that she didn't get it because we have never had as valuable member on the board as long as I have been here as Pat has been. She was very interested and she worked to find out things that were going on. She certainly could be a model for any Planning Commission member and I would like to have that entered in the minutes. The council minutes of October 1. Bob, on the Hess Farm, was that not totally approved back in the second and third phases? I'm not really questioning the Council's actions. I'm curious how this came to this point, whether actually start road work and grading and I thought that had been totally approved all the way through the Council. Why did it come back up again? Bob Waibel this was at the final stage where they bring in the final grading and show the profile of the road. They had showed us the profile in their previous plan. After they got the final approval, there was some change in the grade. It was really unknown to this office and Ray Jackson told me they increased one of the grades we had already approved. It was really a small item. It really was in the realm of engineering and they requested that these be accepted. It was also a quest-ion of the tonage or the face of the road. I think we required nine ton for the emergency access and they requested it. Either reconsideration and the streets inside as far as the strength of the base. Roman Roos I just didn't know that. Bob Waibel We did review detailed grade and the City's plans. elan Roos If there are no further comments on the Council minutes, I move we hate the Council minutes of October 1. Second on that. __ ter Thompson Clark Horn Roman Roos Walter Thompson Roman Roos Clark Horn Roman Roos Bob Waibel Roman Roos Clark Horn erk Horn Bob Waibel Clark Horn Bob Waibel Clark Horn W Waibe 1 -2- I so move Second. Hotion carried. Thomas Hamilton abstained.from voting. Motion was made and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion was carried. One abstaintion, Thomas Hamilton. Moving to the October 8 Council minutes. I think those minutes have the items on the special referendum, I'm just waiting for the Planning Commission to have a crack at the plans when they come in. Motion is ordered to note the Council minutes of October 8. So moved. Walter Thompson .second~ Carried. One abstaintion, Thomas Hamilton. The last set of Council minutes are of October 15, 1979. Bob, did we get that letter out to Gordon Freeburg? I believe we did. I'll check on it. Motion is in order to nota the minutes of October 15. So moved. Walter Thompson ~second. Carr;ied. One abstaintion, Thomas Hamilton. I have a question. What ever happened to this Baltic Corporation? We denied the rezoning. We rejected the rezoning request. The Council rejected the rezoning request. Did they get put in under a lesser use type of thing? It was a non-conforming use, permit, which permitted them to look to the year 2002 under the stringent conditions of the permit. It was not a rezoning. According to Ordinance 47, non-conforming uses can continue with the masonry type of construction they are up there until the year 2002. Actually, it's a change of occupancy and maybe with an allowance of refurbishing the building it would make it more appealing for the duration. But, I thought the conditional use permit specifies the type of business. Any change in occupancy or use of that would have to be under review with the City Council and Public Hearing. But, they are changing the use, aren't they? They're putting in an office building. That's what the non-conforming use is written around. It was a request to change it to a probably less intesity use -3- e a use that would not have the impact and visual qualities of the nursery that did operate there. They thought it would be a less intensity use overall. The property of the operation that was there at the time had the right of contingency. As you recall from the analysis that went through, we tried to figure different land uses that might go in there and based upon that sinareadecided by the Planning Commission to recommend that Baltic.. be considered in some sort of fashion. Roman Roos Let's go on to item #3. Site plan for the Burdick Office proposal. Do we have someone in attendance on that particular proposal? Yes, Dick Shaefer. Bob Waibel The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 8000 square foot office building on the property of about 22,000 square foot parcel located in the SE quadrant of Monterey Drive and West 78th Street. This presently zoned C--2 Commercial district to what the permitted uses of Ordinance 47 are as follows: e General retail sales and services but not including automobile, truck and tractor, trailor or boats or other mobile powered equipment and sales and services, building material yards or car washing establishments, financial institutions, business and professional offices, restaurants, theathers including the drive-in type, dry cleaning and laundry collection stations and self-service laundry and government and institutional operated facilities not limited to admin~strative offices. A par t ion 0 fOr din an c e 4 7 reI a tin g to C.';' 2 d i s t r i c t r e qui res off street loading facility shall be provided within an area of not less than 12 feet width and 65 feet in length, exclusive of aisles and maneuvering spaces. Such facility should be located at the rear of the principal structure and shall be used exculsively for loading and unloading of merchandise. All such facilities and aisles shall be surfaced in the same manner as the parking areas. I find that the use proposed is in fact Cl type of use wi th great differentiation between the general retail and restaurant permitted uses of the C2 category, which is presently zoned and in reviewing the off street loading provisions of the 12 foot wide with and 65 foot length at the rear of the building, this is in the Cl district. This is only required for facilities over 20,000 sq. feet in size, whereas the building proposal is only 8000. e Based upon that finding I would recommend that the off street loading area requirement be deleted from this proposal. e Clark Horn Bob Waibel Clark Horn 4Itb Waibel Roman Roos Craig Mertz Roman Roos Don Ashworth e -4- The following information is needed for completion of the site plan review. It would be sign plan, lighting plan, landscape plan as scheduled and grading and drainage plan. I recommend that the Planning Commission find the subject proposal in compliance with the provisions of Ordinance 47 if the above recommendation of deletion of off street loading requirements is adopted. The.. kJ~~~~ Commission should direct the applicant to prepare/a i1gnr1ng plan and landscape plan ad schedule. Sign plan and grading plan and drainage plan for Planning Commission and/or staff approval. You have given here the uses that are allowed under C2 and the third item is called business and professional offices. Why isn't this conforming to C2? It is the permitted use, but if you go further on the C2 district it doesn't require the loading area which would really be unsuitable for this type of architecture. So, C2 is because of the type of use. You're just saying it requires you to have this loading area and it isn't appropriate for this type of building. This would be inappropriate in a situation requiring a 20,000 ft requirement found in the Cl district for office buildings. Can that be handled by a variance situation? Yes. Since we're in the phase of site plan and review on this proposal that we'd like to know generally what the r~commendations were and what their feelings were on the project. I do not have minutes of that meeting. They are not completed as of yet. The HRA only reviews the three proposals from the basis of whether or not the variance should be granted to the building moratorium. They did not have copies of the specific plans. They made no review of the site plan as it would relate to set back parking, access, any of the planning type of the consideration. The only issue they considered was whether or not the proposed uses were in line with the overall redevelopment plan and whether or not those uses would in any way hinder their ability to carry out that plan. You will also haVe to make that finding as part of your action. You will have to determine whether or not the variance should be granted to allow construction during this moratorium period. -5- e Secondary to that, any specific site plan corisiderations that you may have. I guess that points to a question. Should you be going through site plan review process, I don't know how to answer that. There are pros and cons both ways. You spend a great deal of time going through site plan reviews to find that a variance will not be granted, you waste a great deal of time. On the other side of the coin, you are hindering the applicant during his process if you make him go through variance process and come back and go through site plan review. They only looked at variance process. They stated that for the office facility based on the conformance with the overall downtown concept plan, both from a land use and not hindering the ability of the HRA to carry out redevelopment activity in the downtown area. They made the same findings with the warehouse facility. They did find that to be in compliance. They looked at that one in a little more depth because there was the office/warehouse concern, primarily the one of off street parking requirements and outside sto~ge. That should be discouraged. e They did look to the type of uses that are occurring at H & K or at least at one and considered that a warehouse/retail type of use where a major portion of the facility would be devoted to warehousing activity, but a lesser portion of the building is retail, generally meant the overall categories that they were looking for in that area. They did find that to be in conformance of the activities. of the things they were looking to..........were to remove lumber uses from the rear portion of the lumber companies and to consider the westerly portion of this development as local retail/commercial use. One the There was discussion as to Bloomberg Companies have and still are proposing a home center generally in this area (map). There was concern as far as outside storage of lumber, etc., but felt that their decisions to date in this use that the lumber facility is a proper use in this area. It was finally determined to be reasonable again under the auspice of this general area known as retail. That of course led to the question of what type of uses would occur in this area? Strictly commercial may not be beneficial if you have do have the rear portion of this as the rear portion of a home center, no matter how well you landscape it and try to detract from the detrmental portion of it. They generally felt that the industrial zonirig e e Clark Horn " Ashworth e -6- that exists in the area today is improper, but the land uses of an office/warehouse in this area would be reasonable. The professional building in this area did not interfer with the overall plan portion. I would hope that the Planning Commission would look very hard at those type of land use considerations, especially recognizing that the HRA did not. The restaurant facility they find to be premature. They recommended that no variance be given for this. One of the things that we have talked about for our next session is to get some type of a layering from the staff as to what is appropriate as you layer away from a central area, what is a good sequence of events? I guess that appropriate use as a home center, I cannot accept as yet. I think a more appropriate use would be the continuation of professional office buildings, but I think regardless of whether we leave it that way or change that and the use of an office building.in the next corner over wouldn't be affected by that. The HRA will be meeting this Thursday. One of the items that will be on their ad~nda will be the continuation of the contract with BRW and the ring road. They are now really going into a second phase and working with Kraus-Anderson. They are going to need professional help in reviewing those plans. The state requires a very specific process in actually amending the plan. This represents a concept plan. The actual plan that was adopted simply adopts the boundaries of the entire area. It reaLIYjestablishes the. framewo.rk of the plan. To actually adopt ;8. redevelopment plan you must 5hQ'W .. exac.tiy what businesses are to be relocated, where they would be relocated to, etc. There has to be a number of requirements in dealing with existing owners, you have to be able to inform them exactly what they are entitled to under the law and if you are unable to reasonably negotiate with them about proper procedure about notifying them so that they have normal court processes to occur. The HRA will need help within the next week. Part of the proposal I will be dealing with the HRA on is a redefining, refinding is better, of some of the original concepts. We also have a chore during this time to determine what we want to do and the capital improvements that would be necessary, etc. e Roman Roos Walter Thompson e Roman Roos Walter Thompson Tom Droegemueller Clark Horn e -7- This ring road is generally a concept, but not ~ngraved in stone. I think we have to look at alternatives that can actually work in line with specific development proposals. Imm hoping that the HRA will approve that subsidiary contract and that we can move into that area. If we do, it will involve the Planning Commission. The distance fro~ 7Sth street down to Topeka is roughly 600 foot. Topeka on the/'iv~r?itt e:>S~blished road by the city map. We have had this concept that there will be a super market down in that corner and as I see it the proposed home center would be across the street from that, which I think ties in. Take a look at Warner's. They have a lot of lumber on the inside. I don't see any on the outside, but what is Frontier going to do? Are they still going to be heavily involved in the building materials that normally are stored outside or is it a conventional home center where they will keep lumber inside? If they're going to move the hardware and the lumber and they're going to maintain what they have presently, they certainly are going to have storage out there. Whether or not that is detremental to the building backing up to it, at this point I wouldn't make a decision. If it \IIould be that way, it is up against the railroad tracks. In looking at some of the developments around they have a uniform building situation,but I think they've got manufacturing as well as office building interspaced with it and there again I think whoever is doing the development, he has to know what the economics are, whether that's logical office space or not. I'd be inclined to think if he thinks its satisfactory, to probably go alon~with it. I guess I'm not real excited about warehouses in the center of the city area. I think professional office buildings make sense, but I don't think the area that we're talking about is very large and my personal feelings are that the number of warehouses in ~he area, I don't like. I think I have more problem with other areas, such as the Super Valu and the hardware concept going into that area than I can find with this. The term warehouse use bothers me somewhat. I think the plans I've seen here are som~what more attractive than what I usually subscribe to warehouse. -- Roman Roos Tom Droegemueller Roman RODs Clark Horn Roman Roos Clark Horn Walter Thompson e Roman Roos -8- You'd like to leave it status quo in terms of the concept plan or you just don't want the expansion of warehousing in that area? I guess I'm ju~t not very excited about this. I guess what I'm searching for is a general feeling that perh~ps a motion to modify the concept plan in that area to at least accommodate different uses than what the original area. If I can get that motion on the floor or denied, then at that point we can proceed with the various issues here, pro or con. If it's negative, then we will draw the line right there. Are we reviewing these as a pair or are we strictly dealing with the office proposal right now? I think we can deal with them one at a time, but they're really going to fall in the same pattern. You probably wouldn't have a problem with the office park, but the warehouse is a problem. The definition here is pretty broad. Warehouse is a pretty general term covering a building. Really, the uses that come out of it are various~ I'm not really uptight about it if the building design is incorporated into the situation we have here. I don't think, Walter, we can look at the modification of the area. I'm talking about generalities in that area. Bob, give me the definition of the list. Tom Droegemueller One of the things that concerns us is the kind of traffic that is generated in the city. I'm just not excited about seeing trucks, etc. as far as traffic in the city. Roman Roos Tom Droegemueller Clark Horn e It's an entertainment/shopping area the way I visualize it. On a sight plan review you should be able to control what you can put in there. For the most part, when people come in, it's hard for us to say we don't want that type of use. It seems we don't have a very effective means of controlling it. We wern't sure we could control that much anyway. We were pretty much at the descretion of the developer that was here. Our big objection at that point was to the super market going in. To me that's the pi vital point how this corner goes. I find the e Roman Roos Clark Horn Roman Roos Clark Horn e Roman Roos Walter Thompson Roman Roos Craig Mertz Bob Waibel e -9- super market inappropriate there, but if the super market has to go in the whole downtown plan, in all likelihood it will go in. To me, that changes the whole concept of what we're doing here. I don't think we can change the super market thing. It frustrates me, but I think that's reality. We have to look at them one at a time. There are really two issues. One would be to modify the plan and the second would be a variance. Those are the two steps we're looking at. I guess my comment was that the general business zone, zone 10, covers a multitude of land uses (Roman lists them). Again, based on the H & K warehouse, you have a large type of businesses in the building. From that standpoint, zone 10 would pretty much fit in that category. The thing .1 noticed in that list of uses is I don't see any that would have large shipments and deliveries and semi-trucks. Keep the heavy truck traffic out of there. I don't think we can look at those to the discussion. I think it's irrelevant Well, I think it is. The question is whether traffic is going to be brought into town. I would feel very uncomfortable trying to keep truck traffic out of area 10 when it's in area 6. The general con census should leave the concept plan pretty much as it stands right now. The HRA has indicated satisfaction with this. They're looking at the downtown development area. That is their charge. There would be no need for motion. The action item needed is whether or not to recommend variance to the downtown moratorium. February 20,1980 is the expiration on the moratorium. The motion is that the recommendation that no variance be granted and you have to decide are you just going to table this item and wait for the City Council's decision or do you want to hedge your bets and make your comments on the site plan notwithstanding your motion? On the recommendations that I made for the office building and find out that set-backs for parking, numbers the physical lay-out for the plan is adequate in Ordinance 47. The grading plan - I don't know if the Planning Commission would be interested in reviewing that in any detail. Landscape plan, lighting plan, etc. e Roman Roos Clark Horn wan Roos Clark Horn Tom Droegemueller Clark Horn Roman Roos -10- As far as the office/warehouse building. Their recommendation was at that time the recommendation will be forthcoming for a variance to the moratorium. A variance would be recommended this evening contingent upon either staff or Planning Commission review them. Then it could be submitted direct to the Council after that. As far as the office/warehouse building, I found the deficiencies in the plan to be significant enough that the applicant go back and correct those before he comes back to the Planning Commission again. If we can't come to an agreement here in terms of the use of that area, I'm sure it's difficult for us to even take a look at a variance at this point in time. I hate to get bogged down in that one area, but I think it's very critical. Once we ascertain what the use of that area would be, then we can go ahead and look at the situation in respect to the office/warehouse. I don't think we can get a motion until we get to that point. I have no trouble with the variance with the office building, it's the office/warehouse I have problems with. I would entertian that a motion be made such that there will be no variance to the moratorium in respect to the office/warehouse. I would so move Second that. The first proposal is the office building. I've got the two turned around. There is a motion on the floor then ~~at the variance not be granted to the moratorium in respecV 1tem #4, which is the office/warehouse Lot 1 &2,block 2. Is there any further discussion on that motion? Walter Thompson Restate the motion. Roman Roos The motion is to deny the variance to the moratorium with respect to potential construction of the office/warehouse, south of Peca (sp.) .Drive and Item #4 on the agenda lot I and 2 block 2. Walter Thompson This is contrary to what the HRA indicated. Roman Roos The Planning Commission's concern about the evolution of the traffic area and of course, the retail and what the traffic will be down there. e -11- e Clark Horn r think this has potential of ~oing against what we ultimately might arrive at. Walter Thompson I think the point on traffic is valid, but atfri~e we really don't know that it is going to be that much of a problem. I'm inclined to go along with what HRA recommends. Roman Roos Any other discussion? We have a motion on the floor and I will therefore call for the question, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed - Walter Thompson Motion carries. Therefore, the variance will be recommended by the Council. At this point we can step into the office, item #3 and we have the same situation here. I'd be looking to the Planning Commission a recommendation the variance be granted to the moratorium in respect to this specific proposal. Comments. Tom Droegemueller I so move. Clark Horn e1an Roos Second. Motion has been made and seconded to approve the variance on the moratorium on the office building, which would be item 113 on our October IO, 1979 meeting. Any further discussion on the mot ion? A II in f a v 0 r s i g n i f Y by say in g. aye. Aye - all. Motion carries. Now, we are at a point where we can take a look at either proposaJ since we're on item #3. You are aware the central elements that we need to review on this thing for final approval we do not have this evening. Bob v.Jaibel The grading plan would be an item that was not certain whether the Planning Commission would leave that to a staff review, such as the sign plan and lighting plan that are included in the site plan requirements.ofthe planning procedures manual. It is the Planning Commission descretion whether or not you would care to review those portions that are not included or leave it to staff. Roman Roos Do we not have to come back to the floor anyhow for final approval? Bob Waibel Site plan review is generally a one time review. e e Roman Roos Dick Shaefer Roman Roos Bob Waibel Craig Mertz Roman Roos Clark Horn Craig Mertz Bob liJaibel .ig Mertz Roman Roos Bob Waibel Roman Roos Clark Horn e -l2- Dick Shaefer, do you have this evening anyone of these plans? Bob "\rtJaibel No, we do not./We do show types of planting that might go on this, but generally we get more specific as far as species and that's the only portion missing. The sign plan has not been to the sign committee yet? No, we usually don't get those until after construction and they know who the tennants are. It wouldn't save the developer any time either way if it's handled as a variance or rezoning. Do you want to go into anything on this item based on staff's 'commen1 Is there any preference from the staff as the best way to handle this? It makes no difference, from a legal standpoint. I guess its solely the descretion of the Planning Commission how they feel about the personal review of the landscape plan or the lighting plan, fixtures so to speak. This would be yo~last chance to see the development and if it's approved. I'm hesitating if the HRA has not review the s~n plan. Both of these approvals or disapprovals have to go to Council and I guess it's just a little bit premature. I'd like to have th~s accomplished before we take action on it. The basic elements are here, but at the same token I think we are just putting the cart before the horse. We have the major items attached with the approval of the overall layout. I'm wondering why it isn't here right now. I guess my question is it should have not come before us yet without those elements, ok? The develciper is just following procedure, and yet we have before us now twice and really I don't think we can take any final action on it. Understand that it is only a site plan review. We could this evening just comment on the overall plan, but what else can we do? We don't accomplish a thing. My concern is not so much with the other missing elements, but thE HRA has looked at in that context. I'm more concerned with that. e Bob Waibel Roman Roos Craig Mertz Clark Horn Bob Waibel Clark Horn Bob Waibel ~ter Thompson Roman Roos Craig Mertz Bob Waibel Craig Mertz Clark Horn Tom Droegemueller Roman Roos Roman Roos Craig Mertz - -13- I don't think the HRA really does. In this case, they would in the case like the Holiday. They were concerned about the sign. Everybody was. That's not the way it was structured. The HRA is supposed to review every site plan and every developer based on the same critera thexsBMB Planning Commission is using in regards to the downtown area. He is asking that you approve the thing on the basis of the information before you and leave the balance of the decision to staff descretion. We don't necessarily have to agree with that. Is there any type of provision that we can add to this to have a sign review at the time the tennants plan to erect the sign? That is really in the realm of the sign committee. I mean for the sign committee4 I'm afraid that we'll lose control of this thing and anybody can come in and construct any sign they want. They would have to come in for sign permits. I think we should go ahead. Gentlemen, I'm open for a motion. /If'm reading the comments correctly. What you're looking for isa .motion granting site plan approval and directing Bob to schedule necessary variance procedures as to the loading dock, which the Planning Commission feels can be deleted in this proposal. Would that involve a Public Hearing? Sure it would. I would move that we go ahead and recommend the site plan approval for this project contingent on the staff review and drawing of the variance of the zoning for the loading dock. Seconded All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carries. Item #4 is the site plan for the office/warehouse proposal. Again, we're facing the same type of situatian here. You can table this for a question view of the action on the variance or you can process the application and hedge your bets. ~ Droegemueller Tom Droegemue]8r Clark Horn Roman Roos Bob Waibel e Roman Roos Bob Waibel Walter Thompson Roman Roos Tom Droegemueller Walter Thompson Roman Haas - -14- We rejected the variance. Motion on the floor to table item #4 based on recommendation of the council. Seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion is carried. I tam #5 is the si te plan rezoning....conditiona;J. use permit for the restaurant on Powers Blvd and Hwy 5. As for the previous Planning Commission review of the subject item, the applicant has gone before the HRA for consideration. Minutes of the meeting were not available this evening. Don has indicated the subject proposal was considered to be premature. There is a feasibility study presently being done to consider the possibili ty oft1wiJ::o.,~ ~ in the general area. I also recommend the Planning Commission defer further consideration of the subject proposal until sanitary sewer is eminent and I also recommend that the Planning Commission advise the applicant that before further site planning consideration of this proposal that at the appropriate time, a fore plan indicating capacity of the structure, architectural rendering and drainage plans should be submi tted. The applicant should place in escrow with the city treasurer's office in the amount of $700.00 to defray such costs." Bob, when we looked at this two weeks ago, we said it was premature at that time. It was suggested it was premature, but we deferred it to HRA. It should be tabled until the /f~lelibility study is available. Motion made to table item #5 until the feasibility study is complete. Also to have the applicant be aware of the staff recommendation. So move. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carried. 8:50 p.m~ item #6 is the sketch plan review for James Maxwell, 1010 Pleasantview Road. -15- ~man Roos Is Mrw Maxwell here? Bob Waibel Mr. Maxwell is supporting to subdivide a parcel located approximately 700 feet east of the intersection of Pleasantview Road and Powers Blvd into tworesidential.building sites. The property is presently zoned RI single family residential district. The joining property to the south is zoned RIA agricultural district. The sewer and water maps dated 1978 indicate that the subject property is in the service area of sewer and water. However, there is question as to what method might be utilized in an orderly parcel in obtaining access to the gravity sewer line on Pleasantview Road. Reviewing the subject proposal I find the proposal is in compliance with the Ordinance standards with the exception of the proposed setback of Christmas Lake is indicated at approximately 55 feet, where 35 feet is required. That would be simply moving the building buildable or not build line 20 feet further to the south. e Before going on to preparation to the preliminary plat, in gathering information needed for that it is recommended that the applicant meet with the staff engin\~r~ regarding the application of sewer availability and me .. 0 s needed to attain this availability. - Should the applicant decide to proceed with subdivision plan after receipt of information regarding sewer service from the city engineers, the applicant should prepare a preliminary plat containing all of the required information as outlined in sections 6, 7 and 8 of Subdivision Ordinance 33. In addition to the preliminary plat information, the applicant shall submit abstractor's certificate containing the names and addresses of property owners within 350 feet of the subject property for public hearing purposes. And, also put in escrow with the city treasurer's office in the amount of $200 to defray staff costs and process the application. I did have a phone conversation with Rodney Gordon today and he indicated to me that the sewer line is approximately 994 elevation in Pleasantview Road and Christmas Lake is roughly 933 in elevation. In all likelihood the p~opertyslopes to the north and drops considerably in that there will bave to be some consideration for house in order to achieve the gravity line of Pleasantview. Clark Horn There was no problem with one driveway serving two accesses? - e, Waibel Craig Mertz Bob Waibel Roman Roos Bob Waibel Craig Mertz Bob Waibel Roman Roos e Bob Waibel Craig Mertz Roman Roos Clark Horn Walter Thompson Roman Roos e -16- There is nothing on Ordinance that governs that. It's to the future parties behind the benefit or betterment to get such an access entered in their deeds. In recent cases within the last year, I've found this l09 foot of frontage also. I think that's 60 with a hash mark. I stand corrected. Bob, in the Ordinance, there is a section on the ratio with the length of the lot. That applies to the unsewered areas as far as I can see. That's right. There is a problem here with the design being insufficient under Ordinance #33 because of 60 foot frontage for the back lot. In that case, I will accept the recommendation that the applicant come into conformance withthat unless the Commission would like to consider a variance under the guidelines. I guess I'd_like to see him review the overall plan with respect to Pleasantview. The length of that road coming to his property line. That would be justa private drive. Correct. The way it appears here it would be part of the property holding of the northern side. There is a serious problem about a design that proposes to comply with the street frontage rule by creating a 25foot access strip fans out at the poiht where it hits the road. I woul~.re~uest that we set a public hearing and proceed with the/~eJ&~tl~}ft1nt plan. So move. Seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carried. Item #7 is the site plan and conditional use permit for the Cannonball Restaurant on lot 2 of the Zamar Addition. __ Haibel e Roman Roos Clark Horn Walter Thompson Roman Roos Craig Mertz e -l7- A restaurant located at West 79th street and Hwy IDI. As you know, the city counc~l did approve a plan to construct a Happy Chef on the property last summer situated at a main entryway into the community. The proposal differs from the resolution of the Happy Chef plan for the entry. It has an estimated upper level seating capacity of 162 customers. The required number of parking spaces would be 54. Subject plan indicates 75 parking spaces or 19 above the ordinance. requirement above the upper level. I recommend the Planning Commission approve the subject plan contingent to the following additions: That the applicant present the subject proposal to the HRA regarding the landscape plan, the five foot change in the buffer between the subject site and the Holiday Station and the soft entry are~ encroachment. That the Planning Commission recommend to. the HRA that the deletion of the II spaces east of the proposed structure. The applicant should be aware that deletions would limit capacity of the facility to 192 customers including the banquet facility. If any problem arises due to this capacity limitation, such would need to be reconsidered providing the applicant submits an alternative plan consistent with the guidelines of the Planning Commission and HRA. That the lighting plan, grading and drainage plans be with approval of the city engineer. That the applicant submit for subsequent reviews rear elevations to the proposed structure. That the applicant post in escrow with the city treasurer the amount of $700. If there arA no furthAt' questions, I wouldentertain amotion to recam approval of the subject plan conditioned to the . points outlined. We would have to schedule a plublic hearing on the conditional use. So moved. Seconded. The staff will set a date for the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carries. In May, the devel~pmentproposal came before you that would consist of the Holiday Station store facility which is properly depicted on this exhibit and a Happy Chef restaurant on the westerly portion. In September, you received and the e Roman Roos Walter Thompson Tom Droegemueler e Bob 1Alaibel Roman Roos e -18- City Council received a letter from the Happy Chef people indicating that they were dropping out of the development project and the matter came before the City Council on Holiday's request that they be allowed to proceed alone. Develop Lot #1 even though nothing was going to be done on Lot #2. The City Council voted to go along with that. Tomorrow night the same request is on the HRA agenda. The HRA statute says they cannot act on this particular item until they have received the recommendation of the Planning Commission. On behalf of the HRA, I ask for your recommendation on whether or not Holiday Station store should be allowed to proceed with the development on Lot I in spite of the fact that no substitute developer has the final approval on Lot 2. I recommend that the Holiday proceed. I would entertain a motion that we would permit the continuance of a building plan c O1sidering the proposal as a single entity and considering that that portion be an out lot, and remain as is. Moved. Seconded. All in favor signify by saying aye. One abstaintion~T~9.ma~ Hamilton; Opposed ~ Clark Horn. Motion is carried. /MCMllllen Subdivision Reauestl. Item #8. Lrre appiicant 1S propo~1ng t00construct concrete curb and gutter, bituminous paving and a well and water system. It is the opinion of the office and city engineer that these improvements of subdivision shall delay any problems in the future that are brought about by urban improvements and assesments. As it was brought out by the previous Planning report on the subject, there was an ordinance siting requirement not allowing cuI de sacs greater thatn 500 feet in length. Should the Planning Commission find that the proposal is not premature, there would be need to consider the effect that increased traffic from the subdivision would have existing West 86th Street and the property joining West 86th Street also. I recommend that the Planning Commission find the subject proposal premature and move to deny and order a public hearing. I do have a motion on the floor that we hold a public hearing as scheduled by staff subject to the fact that West 86th street -19- e is a public street from 10l to the boundary of this piece of property. 110ved. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion is carried. Tom Droegemueller Clark Horn Item #9. Lake Lucy water main. Item 1110. Access discussion .... eo eo eo . Roman Roos Motion is in order that we make approval for the modified site plan, Exhibit A, that the cuI de sac road - Road A going to the 36 foot north/south road, pose a minimum standard of 36 foot including the modified area be held at a standard 28 foot as was recommended at a previous time. Tom Hamilton Clark Horn All we have to ~ay is that we recommend adding in Road B at 28 feet. Moved. Second. Clark Horn Roman Roos All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion is carried. Item #ll we will delete. e Item #12 400 West 79th Street. (Southwest Plumbing) Bob Waibel Recommendation is made that the garage and outside storage areas of the development contracts be removed with the condition that absolutely no outside storage occur on the premises including non-licensed powerdriven equipment, any construction equipmen~ and that the area north of the building be used for only as stated or fleet truck parking. Comes down to a recommendation of garage storage area and a recommendation to maintain the requirements for a concrete curb along the parking perimeter area portion of the property. Roman Roos I make motion that we table this until the next Planning Commission and recommend that engineering take a look at this and appraise the situation. Walter Thompson I move. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Motion carried. Motion is made to adjourn the meeting. Second. e