Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br /> " . November 4, 1987, 7:30 p.m. - Village Hall <br /> Wednesday, <br /> CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chairman <br /> Robert Curtis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, <br /> ROLL CALL <br /> . Present: Chairman Robert Curtis, Calvin Meury, Scott Petersen, <br /> Dorothy Zehm and Paul Malone. <br /> Absent: Thomas Babcook, Maurice Johnson, Peter Martin, Rick <br /> Savage and Gary Thorn. <br /> Also Present: Councilmember Jeanne Winiecki, Planner Orlyn Miller, <br /> Clerk Administrator Patricia Morrison and Deputy Clerk <br /> Catherine Iago. <br /> APPROVE MINUTES Moved by Malone, seconded by Meury, that the Minutes of <br /> the October 7, 1987, Planning Commission meeting be <br /> approved as submitted, Motion carried. (Malone, Meury, Curtis, Zehm voting in <br /> favor; Petersen abstained) (4-0-1) <br /> CASE 1/87-31; VAR. Planner Miller explained that the Roseville Bank is <br /> FOR ACCESS. STRUC, is proposing to install an automated teller machine <br /> ROSEVlLLE BANK, (ATM) kiosk in the parking lot at the northeast corner <br /> 4061 NO. LEXINGTON of the bank site. He noted that the AIM would be <br /> located within the front yard of the lot and a variance <br /> would be required to accomplish this, along with the setback variances <br /> requested; 5 ft. setback variance from County Road F and 15 ft. setback <br /> variance from Lexington Avenue. <br /> Miller advised the applicant had stated the following reasons for relocating <br /> the ATM: 1. Safety--Persons who use the AIM after dark will not be hidden <br /> behind the building, 2. Visibility--Better visibility will improve safety and <br /> increase usage, and 3. Access--AIM users will not have to wait in drive-up <br /> . lanes as they do now. <br /> The Planner reviewed the plan for the kiosk housing the ATM,; he noted the base <br /> of the kiosk will be approximately 4 feet below adjacent street elevations <br /> and, in his opinion, the small scale of the building would not detract from the <br /> appearance of the principal structure. <br /> Miller stated that an alternative location, which would satisfy setback <br /> requirements was l~valuated by the applicant, however, the bank preferred the <br /> proposed location for reasons of visibility, ease of turning movements, and <br /> stacking space. The alternate location would require only a variance from the <br /> provision that an acessory structure shall not be in the front yard area. <br /> The Planner referred Commission members to the Board of Appeals minutes, <br /> 10-15-87, recommending approval of the variances as requested~ <br /> Dean Hansen, Senior Vice President of the Roseville Bank, was present and <br /> explained that customer safety was the main motive for requesting the <br /> variances. It was his opinion that the placement of the AIM would not be <br /> visually obstructing nor detract from the appearance of the site. <br /> Member Meury questioned how the AIM would be lighted, internally or externally, <br /> and if the Bank parking lot was lighted during the evening hours. <br /> Hansen advised th"re would be an external light attached to the base of the AIM <br /> . and reflecting downward toward the structure; he stated the parking lot is <br /> lighted during ev"ning hours. <br /> Member Malone questioned if the applicant had considered any alternate <br /> locations. <br /> ------ <br />