1989.11.21 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

\dministrative Intern Schmeling reviewed this request with the planning commission. Mr. Schmeling stated that on behalf of Wil Harris Investments, Inc. the city has received an application for a special use permit by DLW, Inc. of Lino Lakes to operate a non -alcohol teenage night club at 17255 Forest Blvd. No., Hugo Minnesota. In reviewing the request the city has been dealing with Mr. Murray Wright and Mr. Dave Doris. The property in question is currently zoned RB on the west and agricultural on the east' The building is currently the home of Willy's 61 Club. It is the intent of the applicants and owners to use the east 70' of the building for the teenage night club, while the west 90' will continue to be used as a bar. In our initial review of this request with Mr. Doris and Mr. Wright, we emphasized our concern regarding the operation of a non -alcohol teenage night club in the same building, and at the same time, that the bar is being operated. We also pointed out our concern regarding parking and proper traffic control at the site in question. Based on the rough site plan provided it would appear that the property in question involves parcels 2320 in section 5, 2430 in section 4, and the west 235' of parcel 2220 in section 4 all in the City of Hugo, Washington County, Minnesota. It would also appear from the city's section maps that Mr. Harris may own more property than what is shown on the site plan. Administrative intern Stu Schmeling met with the applicants on several occasions to discuss the deficiencies in their site plan in an effort to identify in more detail how the site will accomodate the patrons and customer parking that will be generated by this type of activity. In reviewing the application the staff noted the following. 1. The applicants did not provide a survey clearly identifying the dimensions and description of the property in question. 2. The precise legal description of the parcel identified on the site plan was not provided. 3. Although the site plan indicates that signs will be installed, there is no indication what the signs will look like, nor is there any indication of the setback distances. 4. A method of snow removal or snow storage on site was not identified. 5. No reference was made to the method of refuse removal or location of refuse containers on site. 6. The angular parking identified north of the building and south of the building are in the opposite direction of the flow of traffic identified as entrances and exits on the site plan. 7. The south fire door of the building opens into the exit driveway. 8. One way exit out of the parking lot south of the building indicates proposed exit onto Highway 61 (currently no exit onto Highway 61 exists at the south property line on site). 9. The distance between angular parking shown in the parking lot is only twenty feet and a minimum of 24 feet is recommended. 10. Existing entrances and exists from the building do not meet city building code and fire codes as they currently exist. P.C. Minutes 11-21-89 4