CC MINUTES 08261986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- been indicated in Mr. Childs' August 20th. memorandum .in the agenda packet, that there would be a 62 foot buffer of grass between the property line and the highway which • should somewhat alleviate the fact .th.at the teller facility would be closer to the property line than the Ordinance allowed. A brief discussion followed on the minimal traffic which a business of this type could be expected to generate even if the Credit .Union were granted a community charter. During the consideration of a motion, Councilmember Enrooth said he wouldn 't want to., see approval of this particular drive-up facility establish a precedent for other types of drive-in installations "growing out. of the asphalt in the adjacent shopping center or elsewhere in the City. " Councilmember Marks said he would like to see -it specifically understood that the next request the City gets for a drive-in facility "would not automatically be granted just because this one was". Mayor S.undland indicated he perceived future requests of this nature would have to be evaluated on their own merits and he also wanted it clearly understood that this conditional use permit would not necessarily be continued for any other use which might succeed this one- as he perceived had initially happened with the beauty shop across from Apache. The Mayor suggested staff should be particularly vigilant that "all .of the sudden that property or the real estate office next door didn't become a video store". When Councilmember Marks suggested that it might be necessary for the Planning Commission to specifically address drive-in facilities in the Ordinance, the Mayor indicated he perceived the City could control the permits by setting specific hours of operation as a condition for granting a permit which would require any change in use to be returned to the Council for approval . By changing the wording of the Commission 's recommendation related to this particular permit, Mayor Sundland said the Council • would be -letting applicants for similar permits know :that since this facility was only an extension of the office center .in which it was located, their own situation would be entirely different from this one. Councilmember Enrooth said he perceived that to be a valid statement since the area involved was not a thoroughfare area but rather an isolated site where Credit Union members would be forced to make a loop in traffic to reach the teller facility. Motion by Councilmember Marks and seconded by Councilmember Ranallo to grant a conditional use permit to the B. N. Metro Credit Union to allow the installation of a drive-in teller facility as a detached unit of the Northgate Office Center to be operated in conjunction with the office unit #110, 2500 Highway 88, finding, as did the Planning Commission, that granting this permit would allow a use of the property which would be compatible with the other commercial development in the same center. The Council also grants the requested variance. to the City Ordinance setback require- ments which would allow the drive-in facility".to be constructed eight feet from the southeast property line (.Highway 88 right-of-way) where 30 feet are required, agreeing with the Planning Commission that granting the variance: 1 . Would not be detrimental to the rest of the building complex; 2. Would not destroy any sight lines for adjacent properties; and 3. Would provide a business convenience for the Credit Union 's customers. The Council finds further that: • 4. The drive-in facility is allowed by anleasement agreement between B. N. Metro Credit Union and the condominium owners association; and