04-20-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

will work. Tim Keane stated Roman Mueller, construction engineer, and Dan Bromark, the project manager, were present. Baker asked why SA does not want to put the building against the property line. Mueller answered that strict interpretation of the Uniform Building Code says the building could go against the property line. From a practical standpoint and considering Dairy Queen, SA does not think it is appropriate. If the City deemed it necessary to put the building against the property line, SA will do so. Mueller stated that he, as a professional, would not make that choice. Baker stated he would prefer to see the building on the property line to eliminate the variance. Zisla said Keane were correct about the upgrade of the Silver Lake Road side. Zisla stated that SA’s plans for the Silver Lake Road side is a substantial improvement over the current conditions, including the lots to the north of this site. Saying no to this proposal would be difficult, considering the quality of the greenspace on the Dairy Queen’s and Taco John’s sites. Zisla stated SA has done a good job on this site considering the limitations. SA cannot get credit for the extra landscaping and apply the credit to the requested variance. The monument signs are an improvement. The procedural matter is a significant one. If the Council questions how the Planning Commission viewed the three-foot variance, Zisla said he felt SA has done all they can to have a “reasonable use” of this site. Strict interpretation would prevent a “reasonable use.” O’Brien stated the new proposal is a vast improvement over the current store in terms of the building and the site. O’Brien stated he had no problem with the variance. Baker stated that the aisles are understated. SA is trying to over use the site by going from a six-car to a twelve-car fueling station. Mueller clarified that the existing station fuels eight cars. The new facility would go from eight to twelve fueling stations. Baker stated that fueling on the site is tight now. Zisla stated he did not know how the site and building could be improved in any other way. Responding to the comment regarding PDQ, the Commission paid attention to getting the PDQ variance to a minimum. During the PDQ discussions, the Commission was concerned about granting a variance in one case but not in another. Zisla agreed with Baker’s comments on putting the building on the property line. There are situations where a building can be on a property line. Mueller stated that meeting construction requirements for zero- lot-line construction can be done. The Dairy Queen building may create a problem. Mueller stated he would have to take the conservative approach. LP-354&VN-323, Motion by Livingston, seconded by O’Brien, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF . SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS Schmitz asked if it would be possible to table the item to give SA time to study putting the building on the property line. Baker called for a vote on the motion. 3 Ayes - 2 Nays (Baker and Schmitz) Motion Carried. Keane asked if the dissenting commissioners had no objections to the overall plans, but wished the building to be on the lot line. Baker replied a variance would not be required then. Concept Plan Mark Beisswenger Teague reviewed the planning report concerning a concept plan to construct an addition to Beisswenger’s Hardware, 1360 Old Highway 8 NW. They key issue involved is the fact that a site plan approval was granted to Mr. Beisswenger in 1987 for a total of 33,000 square feet of building to be constructed on the site in two phases. Mr. Beisswenger would now like to construct the second phase, however, is proposing a larger building than what was originally approved in 1987. The recent rezoning of the subject property to MX, I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\04-20-99.WPD 5