04-26-89 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

P1INUTES City Council April 26, 1989 Planner's report, the Planninq Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment as well as the plat for the r•esidential ar•ea. However•, the Commission expressed concern about drainaqe. Nick Roosalis reported that in response to the Planner's concerns about cir•culation, he has added a walkway to the fr~eestandina building which would prevent the circulation problems the Planner was concerned about. Scalze asked the benant for the free-standinq building. Boosalis replied that Rapid Oil C,hanae is inter•ested in this builtlinq. Boosalis pointed out that the total squar•e footaae is the same as in the or•iqinal pr~oposal. The Planner~ r•eviewed the setbacks of the proposed buildinqs, pointecl out that the fr•ee-standi n~ bui 1 di nq i s 1 ocated on the por•ti on of pr~oper•t,y whi ch i s zoned commercial, and is not adiacent to a r~esidential unit. The fr•ee- standinp buildinq would be setback 5C1 feet fnom the northern propcrty line, whi 1 e the 1 ar~qer r•etai 1 bui 1 di nq woul d have an 80 foot setback fr•om the nor•ther•n proper~ty 1 i ne. Boosalis showed cr•oss-sections of both the or•iqinal pr~oposal as well as the cur•r•ent proposal pointinc~ out that there would be a 25 foot setback fr•om the nor•th, then a wooden fence, and then a 15 foot setback. The areas on either• side of the fence would be landscaped. This is as was or•iqinally required by the Council except that the landscaped area on the south side of the fence was r•educed fr~om ?_5 feet to 15 feet. Boosalis pointed out that the parkinq area would be south of the 40 foot landscaped setback br•i nqi nq the total setback for~ the bui 1 di ng from the nor•ther~n pr~oper•ty 1 i ne to 80 feet. Therefor•e, the retail building is even less visible fr•om the property on the north than the original prroposal. Fahey asked if the City had previously r•equir~ed that the landscaped setback area run up to Rice Street. The City Planner replied that the landscaped setback was to screen the buildinq and was not required to run to Rice Street. Boosalis presented the residential portion of the development reporting that the second access was eliminated in or•der• to make for• a better~ r~esi~iential neiqhborhood. Another reason was the cost of constvucting the section of road for• the second access, that was of no benefit. Boosalis pointed out that in the residential por~tion of the development there is a shor•tfall in revenues versus expenses, and the additional road cost makes the project less feasible. Scalze was concerned that the Rapid Oil Change buildinp would screen the other• retail building. Boosalis aqreed that it would fr•om cer•tain an~les,but felt that he would be able to lease the buildinq. Scalze asked if there were other tenants lined up for the larqer buildinq. Paqe -R-