2011-09-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 2 Staff recommended approval of the proposed CONDITIONAL USE; as detailed in 46 Sections 4-6; and conditions as outlined in Section 7 addressing internal lot circulation 47 and screening of the staff report dated September 7, 2011. 48 Chair Boerigter sought additional clarification on impacts to traffic circulation on the 49 overall site for existing businesses in the strip mall, with the addition of the drive-through 50 lanes and reconfiguration. 51 Applicant, Paul Nelson 52 Mr. Nelson advised that the small, on-site coffee shop was already open to the public, but 53 was not heavily advertised or used by the public; and basically served clientele with 54 disabilities served by ACR Homes, their families, and in-house staff. 55 At the request of Chair Boerigter, discussion ensued among Commissioners, staff and 56 the applicant related to traffic flow on-site and ingress/egress points off-site; location and 57 status of “Ida Avenue N” that is actually a public right-of-way, not a street, and part of the 58 existing parking for the strip mall; proposed signage for traffic flow to avoid any conflicts; 59 recent resurfacing of the parking lot, but striping of the proposed drive-through site 60 awaiting approval of this request; and staff’s intent to continue working with the applicant 61 to address any potential conflicts through signage and striping of the parking lot, and in 62 accordance with City Code requirements; including addressing how to direct traffic back 63 on to Rice Street as applicable. 64 At the request of Member Wozniak related to through traffic on the western edge of the 65 parcel, Mr. Nelson advised that this had always been a bone of contention off Transit 66 Avenue, with four feet (4’) as right-of-way and the remainder private property owned by 67 ACR Homes (the strip mall). Mr. Nelson noted that they had installed “No Through 68 Traffic” signage, but it was often ignored, specifically by one particular school bus driver. 69 Mr. Nelson noted that the area was minimally used by some of the insurance adjusters 70 between their off-site jobs; and that there was not a steady flow of traffic in that particular 71 area. 72 At the request of Member Lester, Mr. Nelson advised that ACR Homes occupied 80% of 73 the strip mall; and that the existing “Arthur’s Coffee Shop” had been originally designed 74 for ACR Homes staff meetings and manager training. 75 Mr. Paschke advised that parking lot traffic flow would be accomplished through striping 76 along the south side of the building, but that no hard surfaces changes were anticipated 77 or being stipulated. 78 Member Strohmeier sought clarification on how sound levels of the drive-through 79 speakers would be monitored and/or enforces. 80 Mr. Paschke advised that City Code provided restrictions of the City’s nuisance code, as 81 well as through the environmental standards of its zoning ordinance, for maximum 82 decibel levels; with no existing speakers found to be at a out of compliance, and typically 83 not a problem. Mr. Paschke clarified those things that were annoying versus those found 84 to be a nuisance; and advised that staff had been and would continue to be receptive to 85 any property owners having concerns, and would work with commercial business owners 86 to adjust volumes for the comfort of all. Mr. Paschke advised that staff periodically 87 monitored drive-through speaker volumes to ensure compliance. 88 At the request of Member Boguszewski, Mr. Nelson advised that the anticipated hours of 89 operation would be weekday mornings to mid-afternoon, but that the drive-through would 90 not be a late night operation. Mr. Nelson anticipated that the majority of the business 91 would be from commuters to and from work; but that ACR Homes would be flexible on 92 hours of operation as directed by City staff and actual business operations. 93 Mr. Paschke advised that there was nothing in existing City Code restricting the hours of 94 operation for a drive-through; however, he advised that conditions could be applied 95 depending on the use. Mr. Paschke opined that this use didn’t rise to such a level so as 96 to require a condition. 97