03-16-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Livingston asked Arnold about giving up parking spaces for the drive-through window. Will most of the customers use the drive-through and not come into the store? Arnold answered affirmatively. Arnold said he had checked with other Dairy Queens and a good portion of their business has shifted to windows. Arnold stated that is why he has concentrated on making the drive-through as efficient as possible. Schiferl asked for clarification of the code requirement for drive aisles. Teague stated the code requires one- way drive aisles to be 14 feet wide. The proposed drive aisle is 14 feet wide. Teague said there may be a problem at only one point on the proposed aisle, where it narrows to 12.5 feet. Along the east and north property lines, the drive aisle is 14 feet wide. Teague showed the drive aisle widths on the site plan. Baker asked Arnold if putting the ordering station back farther would give more make up time. Arnold responded the make up time would be adequate. Schiferl referred to the resolution, #5, “In this instance the undue hardship or a unique circumstance is caused by the small size of the site coupled with the restrictive setback off a side street that is not maintained by the City.” Schiferl stated he did not have a problem with saying a hardship is created by the side street not being maintained by the City. Schiferl stated he was concerned about saying the small size of the site is considered a unique circumstance because that could set a precedent. Teague stated Schiferl’s point was a good one. The Commission reviewed the proposed resolutions. Teague showed the proposed changes on the site plan. Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schopf, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF NC- 114.6Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. Motion by Schiferl, seconded by Schopf, TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF VN-322,I#,“I CHANGING TEM FIVE TO READ N THIS INSTANCE THE UNDUE HARDSHIP OR UNIQUE -- CIRCUMSTANCE IS CAUSED BY THE RESTRICTIVE SETBACK OFF A RIGHTOFWAY THAT IS NOT MAINTAINED C.”6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. BY THE ITY General Business Zoning Ordinance Amendment City of New Brighton Teague reviewed the memo and handout regarding consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a new zoning district to be called MX-G, Mixed Use Gasoline. Teague asked the Commission to review the two alternatives and make a recommendation to the City Council. Baker asked about the location of car washes in the Alternative #1. Teague responded a car wash can only be located in the rear or side yard, as outlined in Item C. Schiferl asked about Item G, “Access must be available off two different arterial roadways.” Schiferl stated only two possible sites could be zoned MX-G. Teague stated the provision is incorporated in the ordinance. Schiferl asked why, if the Council wants the flexibility to have a gas station north of I-694, does it have to be on those two corners. What was the intent of the Old Highway 8 Corridor Study? Schiferl stated that, if flexibility is the goal, he would prefer omitting the language specifying two arterials. Teague stated staff has agreed with Schiferl’s point. If the City is creating this district, the Planning Commission and the City Council still have the discretion to grant the rezoning to allow those uses. If a request for rezoning to MX-G came in for a location that the City deemed undesirable, the Council would be able to deny the request. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\03-16-99.WPD 2