LP-038 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t . LPw38 -2- it on the east part of the site, the building is kept at ~ much low~r elev~tion. We do not ~xpect the perking lot nnd the c~rs in it to create a problem for the residenti~l areas as the m~jor part of the parking lot is at a lower level than adjacent str~ets and is also ringed by a buffering strip of arborvitae. Both of thesp factors will tend to screen the adjacent nrea from car lights. Part of the residents' concprn seem to relate to the possibility of future driveway access on 26th Avenue bec~use of the presence of the parking lot on that side. We would note that unless the Council grants special permission, the applicant is limited to two driveway entrances as shown on the present plan. In terms of long range p1anning, we would note that the 1971 Land Use Plan envisioned this site being developed for medium dpnsity residential uses while the recently adopted {by the Planning Commission} draft of a revised land use plan shows this area' as low density residential. ~lanninq Commission Consideration (11-16-76): The City planner reviewed his comments noting that the Board of Review had considered the same request at their meeting last January. Mr. Jack Welsch, applicant and developer, was present to answer questions. Mr. Welsch noted that the building plans were the same as those submitted earlier this year. Mr. Welsch stated that this would be about a $350,000 investment and that he felt a restaurant of this type would be an asset to New Brighton. Brown asked Mr. Welsch why he was reapplying for the liquor license when the Council has already denied an application earlier this year. Mr. Welsch stated that the Council was new when the prior application was considered and that being new, they may have been intimidated by the area residents. Brown asked Mr. Welsch if he would consider building the restaurant if the liquor license was denied again.