Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Planning Commission Min~~es - January 2, 1985 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />Planning File 1569, Cont'd: <br /> <br />3) That the following easement documents be recorded: <br />a. Access easement for use of the MidAmerica Bank's private drive on <br />County Road B-2. The City reserves the right to close the access to <br />B-2 via the MidAmerica Bank entrance if, in the opinion of the City, <br />a traffic problem exists. <br />b. Easement for the use of the common drive between the proposed <br />development and the development to the east. <br />c. Access easement to allow public use of the private roadway from the <br />west end of American Street to a public street. <br />d. Ponding easement for construction and maintenance of the stormwater <br />pond in the northeast corner of the site. <br />e. Easement for planting and maintaining landscaping on the Williams <br />Brothers Pipeline Company property. <br />f. Utility easements for existing utilities remaining after the right-of- <br />way vacation, and for other necessary utility services. <br />4) That the City be respnsible for maintenance of the pond. <br />5) That the utilities, grading, parking, landscaping and rooftop screening <br />plans be subject to staff approval. <br />6) That the exterior material be brick on all four sides of the building. <br />7) That approval of the proposed restaurant be subject to staff review. <br />8) That there be no less than 819 parking spaces. <br />9) That the vacation of the streets be subject to a replat of the property. <br />10) That the project be developed according to plans dated December 7, 1984. <br /> <br />Roll Call, Ayes: Dressler, Johnson, Matson, Berry and DeBenedet. <br /> <br />Nays: None. <br /> <br />Plannin~ File 1568 - M. T. Realty Corporation request for variance at 2350 Cleveand <br />Avenue. <br /> <br />Presentation <br /> <br />Mr. Dahlgren indicated the existing Pylon sign at Mother Tucker's Restaurant exceeds <br />height and size limitations for the B-1b district. He indicated there was a <br />misunderstanding between the applicant and the Code Enforcement staff regarding the <br />size of sign allowed. The sign was ordered before the mistake was discovered. <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />Berry asked how much trouble it would be to lower the sign ten feet. Linda Fisher, <br />representing the applicant, indicated there would be significant problems both <br />practical and financial. She also indicated other signs to the north of the subject <br />property are larger and higher. <br />