03-04-98 Council Workshop Minutes

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4, 1998 majority of the frontage on Rice Street for access. If access for the theater and Winter's property is combined in some way, the Winter's property becomes more developable. If the .91 acres are combined with the theater, Schroeder felt this area became a back-door parking lot, would be unattractive, and would be in the backyards of the Iona Lane homes. If the 91 acres are used for parking and/or buffering, Schroeder felt it might be better combined with the Winter's property. Schroeder felt that 60 to 70 parking spaces could be improved on the .91 acres which is a lot of parking, but is not in the location that the theater wants it. Fahey suggested that an easement could be obtained over the theater parking lot for access to the 91 acres if it is combined with the Winter's parcel. Schroeder felt the .91 acres gave the Winter's property a little more flexibility for how it is developed. Pedersen asked if the Winter's property would be a good site for a small restaurant given the theater that may be located to the north. Schroeder felt that the site may be too deep for a restaurant location pointing out that a restaurant would want its building as close to Rice Street as possible. However, Schroeder felt that the 1.75 acres owned by the Winter's would be developable, and the addition of the .91 acres gives development of that site a little more flexibility. Schroeder felt that one of the best options would be to place the theater on the Winter's property. The City Administrator reviewed Options A and B with regard to theater location. Option A places the theater along the east property line of the site which results in a better layout for the future development of the Winter's property. However, Kim Wise of Cinemark feels this location doesn't work since there is not enough depth from Rice Street to accommodate all of the parking in the front of the theater. Pedersen pointed out that this brings the theater closer to the property north of Little Canada Road and makes walking from that area easier. Fahey noted that Option A is better for the future development of the Winter's property. The Administrator pointed out that Option B places the theater against the Winter's property. The appraiser indicated that havin~; a theater 30 feet fi•om their property line and given the 48-foot hi~h wall backing up against this propeRy could devalue the Winter's property by as much as 50%. The appraiser indicated that the setback from the property line would have to be I50 feet to avoid devaluation. The Administrator pointed out that a I50-foot setback would not work. 2