2011-09-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, September 7, 2011 Page 5 Member Strohmeier spoke in support of the request, contrary to his questions, and only 199 seeking to become more familiar with the process. Member Strohmeier noted that it 200 appeared that the majority of the customers would be staff, and that the drive-through 201 would be serving an existing customer base; however, he encouraged the applicant to be 202 diligent with the hours of operation for the drive-through and the speaker volume to 203 ensure that it didn’t rise to a nuisance level. 204 Chair Boerigter spoke in support of the motion; opining that this site and area of Rice 205 Street was a commercial area and zoned as such, and that it already had lots of traffic 206 and noise. Chair Boerigter concurred with Mr. Paschke on the potential uses that would 207 create more issues than this request; and further noted that City Code didn’t allow for a 208 drive-through in front of a property, even though this particular site may be more 209 amenable to front rather than rear location for a drive-through. 210 Ayes: 6 211 Nays: 0 212 Motion carried. 213 Chair Boerigter noted the anticipated City Council action on this item scheduled for 214 September 26, 2011. 215 PLANNING FILE 11-024 b. 216 Request by Meritex Enterprises, Inc. for approval of VACATION of former [TWO] 217 Rights-of-Way for Highcrest Road and Terminal Road 218 Chair Boerigter opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. 219 City Planner Thomas Paschke summarized the request; and advised that, as detailed in 220 Section 5 (Vacation History), this was basically a housekeeping issue as the Meritex Plat 221 was being filed with the County Recorder’s Office; and realization that there was no 222 County Survey on file, in accordance with State Statute (Attachment D). Mr. Paschke 223 advised that this action would clear the record, and allow the plat to be recorded. Mr. 224 Paschke noted that the two (2) roads at these locations had not been maintained by the 225 City for a number of years, since they were thought to be vacated; and prior to Meritex 226 razing the structure on that site, Terminal Road served as part of their parking lot, even 227 though it could inadvertently appear as a public street on maps. 228 Staff recommended approval of the request, based on the comments and findings 229 outlined in Section 5; and as detailed in the staff report dated September 7, 2011. 230 Discussion included clarifying that the roadway had not served as a public street since at 231 least the 1980’s; maintenance of and sharing of the road by two (2) property owners for 232 at least thirty (30) years; and no City snowplowing of the road. 233 When questioned by Member Wozniak on how to identify Attachment D,” it was 234 determined by Mr. Paschke that it was not included in the meeting packet materials; and 235 with apologies, Mr. Paschke advised that it was Quit Claim Deeds that were not very 236 legible due to printing them from scans of older documents. Mr. Paschke advised that the 237 intent of including them as an attachment was simply to verify the legal descriptions of 238 the area. 239 Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m.; with no one appearing for or 240 against. 241