10-21-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

demolish the existing center, subdivide the land and construct a restaurant, drug store, retail and medical buildings. The existing Champp’s restaurant, bank and Sinclair station are not part of the PUD, but existing shared parking between Champp’s and the bank will be reviewed in the context of meeting overall parking requirements. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission and City Council in August of 2003, and received preliminary approval with conditions. Mr. Boylan reviewed the history of the project and code requirements. Lane Hendel, Director of Real Estate Development for Kraus Anderson, reviewed the master site plan for Commissioners. He explained the overall goal of the redevelopment of Brighton Village was to bring a town center concept, a pedestrian feeling to an area that right now is a parking lot and a 74,000 foot retail strip center, bringing vitality and new energy to the area. He explained the Snyder bankruptcy issue leaves that portion of the project temporarily stalled. It is the belief of the developers that this portion will go through as planned. Darcey Mohr, Associate Attorney for Levander, Gillen & Miller, appearing on behalf of Dan Beason, who is the attorney for Sinclair. She explained their client is very appreciative and mind- ful of the fact that there would be no condemnation of the Sinclair building as a part of the redevelopment and their client is also supportive of the Kraus Anderson plan to redevelop this area and they see it as an enhancement to the city and they see it as a good move forward. However, to the extent that the current proposal encroaches on Sinclair’s property rights and enjoyment and utility of its property, they are here to voice their objections to this plan. Sinclair’s objections are two fold. First, there is a relaxation of the setback between that 6,000 square foot property to the east of the Sinclair station and the PUD requires a 30 foot or the height of the building as a setback, whichever is higher, and clearly the building would be taller than twelve feet, given its square footage. This large retail building unnecessarily encroaches on Sinclair’s enjoyment, value and utility of its parcel. There is no offer justification for the relaxation of the PUD standards. She states the PUD clearly says there shall be a minimum setback of the height of the building or 30 feet, whichever is greater, from all property lines that form the perimeter of the entire plan of the PUD. The second objection that Sinclair has to this plan is the taking or loss of Sinclair’s access rights under this proposed plan and PUD. We previously outlined this at the August presentation. Kraus Anderson has proposed to close the northeast access on Sinclair’s property. Sinclair’s customers, its employees, vendors, fuel trucks and the like have all enjoyed this access for the last twenty years. Ms. Mohr also stated, that moreover, Kraus Anderson’s proposal involves the taking or closing of Sinclair’s direct access to Pike Lake Drive, with its realignment further to the east. She notes by looking at the plan under Kraus Anderson’s current proposal, Sinclair is an entirely cut off parcel and has no access to the interior of that development. This design she explained would be wholly inconsistent with the goal of this redevelopment, which Kraus Anderson stated was synergy among the parcels in this redevelopment. She states there could not be synergy if one of the parcels has no access to the other development projects within the larger development. She relayed that currently, as the plan stands, the only access that customers will have to Sinclair is along Silver Lake Road. They cannot cut through to get to the other buildings in that area, nor can shoppers or other customers in that development access Sinclair unless they go out onto Silver Lake Road which would probably be too much of a hassle. She further stated this redevelopment plan should benefit all of the businesses and all of them should be able to prosper. She explained the way it currently stands there will be some winners and some losers and I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2005\2003\10-21-03.doc