PCMin_85Nov4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 4, 1985 PAGE 2 • being offered by the tenants in the Bullseye Plaza building.. Wallin PARKING questioned the proportionate size of the square footage allocated to VARIANCE AT Bullseye compared to the number of parking stalls required by the code BULLSEYE as well as the space allocated as restaurant. Breitinger agreed that PLAZA it appeared to be disproportionate. Black asked if any changes would DISCUSSION be made by MN DOT to allow more parking on the boulevard area on the (contd.) west to which Mr. Breitinger answered that he was not aware of any changes but the parking shown on the diagram as presented is there, which totals 112 stalls on the Bullseye property not including the portion around the Embers Restaurant. Tenants will be required to use the parking situated on the old liquor store site. The proposed restaurant advised that the hours will be from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. with. peak hours being from 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. Finegan stated that parking is probably on the edge of what can be handled in view of the utilization of Bullseye of the downstairs activities, which might considerably increase the traffic and is quite concerned whether it will all fit. Olson requested information on what type of activities are taking place in the basement area of which Mr. Bretinger advised he was not aware of any activities. Mead advised that the basement area was to be used only for storage as originally proposed. Wallin stated that the parking issue was thoroughly discussed before construction was authorized, and felt that to come in at this time based on uses when the square footage has not changed is a little over-reaching on the owner of the Bullseye Plaza building. In fact, the very type of things they are asking for are easily forseeable • and should have come .out at that time. Therefore, he is opposed to expanding the parking situation with additional variances on what he saw as a piece- meal almost planned basis. Stefanson felt the problem that arose is what the area in the basement is being used for and the additional parking that will be required so if a package is going to be presented for variance approval in total, the package would have to consider what the basement area is being used for. Therefore, he could not consider approval until that matter is cleared up. Mr. Breitinger asked if approval could be contingent upon bringing the basement into conformation. Stefanson felt that Bullseye should be up front and advise what activities are .taking place in the basement area and it should be all one package when presented for approval. Black and Mead agreed that the basement issue needs to be resolved. Wallin advised that he could not vote on the variance as presented this evening as the Planning Commission need not be pushed into voting on the variance out of a necessity situation when Bullseye has created the problem on their own. Even if the basement useage were eliminated, he felt he still would be opposed to the variance since there was a variance already granted for the project. After a considerable amount of discussion regarding the parking variance, the Planning. Commission suggested that Mr. Breitinger attend the next City Council meeting scheduled for November 13 and be prepared to address two issues: (1) the variance for parking was not resolved earlier so if there is an expressed reservation to readdress the issue of parking stalls in the event a restaurant is in fact going to locate in the end of the • building, be able to show the Council that "it is a door that is not locked but has been left open", and (2) be in a position to show that Bullseye Golf will live within the restrictions of the variances that they have asked for in the past. The intensified use in the basement is not what they agreed to abide by in the past.