04-26-2000 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council April 26, 1989 Planner's report, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment as well as the plat for the residential area. However, the Commission expressed concern about drainage. Nick Boosalis reported that in response to the Planner's concerns about circulation, he has added a walkway to the freestanding building which would prevent the circulation problems the Planner was concerned about. Scalze asked the tenant for the free - standing building. Boosalis replied that Rapid Oil Change is interested in this building. Boosalis pointed out that the total square footage is the same as in the original proposal. The Planner reviewed the setbacks of the proposed buildings, pointed out that the free - standing building is located on the portion of property which is zoned commercial, and is not adjacent to a residential unit. The free- standing building would be setback 50 feet from the northern property line, while the larger retail building would have an 80 foot setback from the northern property line. Boosalis showed cross - sections of both the original proposal as well as the current proposal pointing out that there would be a 25 foot setback from the north, 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 originally required by the Council except that the landscaped area on the south side of the fence was reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet. Boosalis pointed out that the parking area would be south of the 40 foot landscaped setback bringing the total setback for the building from the northern property line to 80 feet. Therefore, the retail building is even less visible from the property on the north than the original proposal. Fahey asked if the City had previously required that the landscaped setback area run up to Rice Street. The City Planner replied that the landscaped setback was to screen the building 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 order to make for a Netter residential neighborhood. Another reason was the cost of constructing the section of road for the second access, that was of no benefit. Boosalis pointed out that in the residential portion of the development there is a shortfall in revenues versus expenses, and the additional road cost makes the project less feasible. Scalze was concerned that the Rapid Oil Change building would screen the other retail building. Boosalis agreed that it would from certain angles, but felt that he would be able to lease the building. Scalze asked if there were other tenants lined up for the larger building. Page 148