CCP 04-27-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Karch 4, 1987 . Page 6 Scott briefly reviewed the vehicle access to the site from Hwy. 96, which would not allow vehicles to cross the highway and the access to and from the site at Hamline Avenue. Duncan Mallard explained the architectural design of the buildings, noting the following features: cedar exterior to blend with the townhomes exterior materials, cedar fencing to enclose the dumpsters in the rear of the building, heating/cooling systems enclosed under the staggered peaked roofs, signage for the buildings which is routed and back lighted to soften the appearance. Planner advised the Commission that the applicant, at this time, is requesting a rezoning only; a site plan review would be a requirement under the SUP application. Savage asked if the convenience store would include gasoline pumps; questioned hours of operation and also expressed concern regarding the owners ability to lease the space. James Stopelstad and Mike Scott noted they have had inquiries from several convenience stores, however, the question of gasoline pumps is an open issue at this time. They also advised that most lenders will not approve the financing of this type of project without a minimum of 50% of the . space leased. Johnson questioned the applicant's comprehensive plan statement, relative to the statement that currently 30% of the 45,000 sq. ft. of construction proposed for the site could be used for accessory retail purposes. Miller advised members it is his opinion that the applicant has interpreted the zoning ordinance incorrectly; that percentage would only apply to a single user and that the City has historically interpreted the Code for singular use. He was unable to contact the Village Attorney for his interpretation of the zoning code. Winiecki questioned if there would be a need for the rezoning if the applicant's interpretation were correct. Planner advised the applicant would not have to pursue the rezoning, however, the plan would be limited to one building. Martin stated that if the rezoning were approved for this parcel he is concerned that the applicant could proceed with a different development plan or decide not to develop the site, leaving the land open for development by someone less sensitive to neighborhood compatibility. He suggested the applicant could use the PUD approach; the Commission could then make a decision based on an exact plan with conditions imposed, rather than arbitrarily rezoning the parcel. . Stopelstad was agreeable to pursuing the PUD application, however, he suggested the Commission could accomplish the same by rezoning the property with contingencies they deem appropriate.