PL MINUTES 06182002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2002 • Page 5 1 Chair Melsha clarified that they did not have a problem with cutting down the roofline. 2 Sparks confirmed that they do not have a problem with that. 3 4 Chair Melsha stated that the reason for the concern over storm water run-off was due to 5 the constant struggle of storm water run-off on Silver Lake Road. 6 7 B. On-site parking variance for a required number of spaces for every 50 square 8 feet of floor area for a fast food, take out, or convenience restaurant. 9 Sparks stated that, from an operational perspective, the site plan generates an 10 adequate number of parking spaces with the 70 that are currently outlined. 11 12 Chair Melsha stated that they must show hardship in order for the City to consider the 13 variance. 14 15 McGuire stated that, in essence, they would need to have a lot more property, or cut 16 down the building in order to comply. He added that the additional land was not 17 available, and that to lessen the building anymore would not make it a viable 18 operation for anyone. 19 20 C. Combine Lot 1, Block 1, Apache Plaza with Lot 2,Block 1, Apache. Chair Melsha asked where they are on the purchase agreement with Exhaust Pro. Sparks indicated that they are in on-going agreement with the three parties involved. 23 24 D. Rear yard setback variance request of 4.25 feet to meet the 20 feet setback 25 requirement. 26 Chair Melsha stated that they need to show hardship, and that the easement exists. 27 He stated that there is a small piece of the building that results in the non-compliance, 28 and that they had to display why the property could not be put to reasonable use 29 without the variance. 30 31 McConn stated that the essence of that was that the City has requested the additional 32 space to be put in the front of the building, which is where they have the conflict. 33 34 Vice Chair Stille asked if this was the best plan for the area when attempting to 35 accomplish all of the various requests. McConn stated that they started with three 36 different plans, and that the one that they have presented is the only logical placement 37 of the building in order to accomplish all of the functional aspects of the operation. 38 39 Vice Chair Stille asked if the gray-shingled roof on the restaurant in Blaine would be 40 a better option for St. Anthony. McConn stated that he was unsure of the reason for 41 the gray-shingled roof,but that the metal roof was more durable and had a longer life. 42 3 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. 5 Chair Melsha stated that his opening thought on this entire issue was that they would 46 not be dealing with this project, if they were further along on the Apache 47 redevelopment project, and that it was not the ideal way to do the planning for the 48 development.