10-11-2018 Planning Commission Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 2018 Kwapick recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Proof of Parking at 190 Ryan Lane. Motion seconded by Thorson. Motion carried 6 — 0. VARIANCE FOR The Associate Planner explained that Aldi, Inc. located at 2350 Rice Street, FRONT YARD is seeking approval of a variance for a reduced front yard setback on the SETBACK & west property line, as well as architectural review of the exterior ARCHITECTURAL enhancements that are being completed as part of the proposed 1,617 REVIEW FOR 1,617 square foot building expansion. She stated that the existing building was SQUARE FOOT constructed in 2003, and as part of Aldi's efforts to refresh their buildings EXPANSION; this expansion will create additional internal space between shelving, ADDRESS: 2350 RICE check-out lanes, and an indoor cart area. In addition to exterior STREET; APPLICANT: improvements, the applicant has indicated that they will be installing all ALDI, INC. new mechanical and lighting within the building, plus adding matching brick to the existing pylon sign pole and re -facing the existing signage. She noted that all of the improvements proposed are consistent with the requirements of the Architectural Guidelines. The Associate Planner explained that the applicant indicated in their narrative that the variance setback they are seeking is 20 feet on the west property line, however, the site plans show the encroachment into the required front yard setback to actually only be four feet on the north half of the west elevation, and about a 13.7 foot encroachment on the south half. She stated the Applicant is seeking a 20 foot variance to allow for some , wiggle room during construction, but the actual setback will be what the footprint of the building is. The Associate Planner stated that Aldi, Inc. is seeking a variance for a reduced front yard setback on the west property line. She explained that they are limited in which direction a building expansion could go. She stated that the north elevation has grade variations between the property line that prohibit expansion; the east elevation has the stonnwater pond and loading docks, and the irregularity of the lot also became a challenge for expansion, especially when reviewing the east elevation. She noted that it may appear that the south elevation could be an option for the building expansion, but there are issues with that side also. She explained that a building expansion to the south would reduce the number of parking spaces, and without those spaces abutting the building, the property would not meet the minimum parking requirement. -7-