Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~.3-' <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Mr. G. Johnson asked whether the applicant prolXJsed to do a..'1y maintenance of vehicles <br />on the site. <br /> <br />~lr. Ingram stated that the station would have no gax:agE~ facilities. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson asked if it was the applicant i s intent to select brick similar to that used <br />on the apartrrent building. <br /> <br />Mr. Ingram stated that they would if <br /> <br />\':24"" the desire of t.~e city. <br /> <br />Mrs. Dressler stated she was concerned with. the traffic into the site and felt that the <br />frontage road with two entrances should be maintained and that a third entrance would only <br />add to the traffic problem in the area. <br /> <br />Mr. SinDns asked what the rear doer of the facUi ty would be used for and where the <br />handicapped parking would be located. <br /> <br />Mr. Ingram stated that the rear door would be used for entrance only and that parking <br />for the handicapped was located in the rear. He did note that the handicap parking <br />was located in the rear in order to utilize the rarrp which would be constructed at the <br />northwest comer of the building and also to permit entrance to the building from a less <br />congested area. <br /> <br />Mr. Sirrons asked where the trash dtmpster would be located. <br /> <br />Mr. Ingram stated they had made no provision for dumpsters but would provide an enclos- <br />ure at the rear of the building if r~ired. <br /> <br />Mr. M=Guire stated that the sout.~erly entrance was not recomrended for approval by the <br />engineering staff and also may not be approved by the State of Minnesota. He stated <br />the main problem is the traffic congestion created by the apartIrents and the additional <br />traffic which would be created by the proposed gas station and possible restaurant in the <br />future. He suggested that t.h::= lTOst appropriat.e rrethod to minimize the traffic congestion <br />would be to naintain the frontage road as prof1;Jsed in th: Pt}O since minimizing the mmber <br />of entrances would provide less obstacles for a rrotorist. <br /> <br />Mr. Johnson stated that as he rerrenbered the apartIrent plan, the PUD included the <br />northemJIDSt entrance but that the southerly entrance as proposed by the applicant is <br />inconsistent with the original proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren stated that he was correct and noted that the frontage road was an integral <br />part of the apart.nent building approval. <br /> <br />Recorrrrendation <br /> <br />MI:'. Rukavina rroved, Mr. Mastel seconded, that the Cornnissi.on recamend approval of <br />Continental Oil's request for special use permit and division of lot at 2815 Rice Street <br />with the follaving conditions: <br /> <br />1. '!hat the building be finished in the sane materials and wall patterns <br />wi th brick on all four sides. <br /> <br />2. '!hat the driveways to Rice St:reet be c.onfined to those originally approved <br />in the PUD <br />