Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.... <br /> <br />New Brighton Planning Commission <br />S p e ci alt.' e e tin g <br />t1 a y 4, 1 9 8 2 <br />Page #3 <br /> <br />. <br />, <br /> <br />.... , <br /> <br />The applicant indicated that there were a number of AA <br />groups in the area that would support this type of facility <br />and that it would also be designed for the Senior Citizens <br />in this area. He felt becuase of its location to 694 and <br />35-W there would be no problem for this business. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weaver indicated that she could not understand <br />how there would be seating in this small facility for 200 <br />people and felt that the design was too intense for the <br />building. <br /> <br />Mr, Hanna indicated that he did have seating for 200 and that <br />the occupancy load stated by the building inspector would be <br />approximately 300. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sande inquired of staff if the applicant was <br />prepared to bring the building up to code. <br /> <br />Staff noted that before an occupancy certificate could be <br />issued to the applicant that the entire building would have <br />to meet fire, building and electrical codes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Livingston indicated that he was in favor of this <br />particular type of business but that he didn't feel it fit the <br />particular site being considered. He said that he would like <br />the applicant to look somewhere else in New Brighton for a <br />suitable location that met the parking requirements because <br />he felt that it would provide a service for the community. <br /> <br />Commissioner Helgeson indicated that she also felt that it <br />was a good concept and idea but that the parking situation was <br />a real problem with this particular site. <br /> <br />Commissioner Knuth indicated that he had real concerns with this <br />site in regard to parking and asked the applicant if he could <br />provide a more definitive parking sutdy on the actual needs for <br />parking generated by this particular type of use and felt that <br />because it was a new concept that the Planning Commission should <br />go on a field trip to look at comparable uses. <br /> <br />Commissioner Weaver indicated that she felt that the parking <br />problem should be worked out because as the situation is now this <br />use is too intense for the site. <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Motion by Knuth, second by Weaver to continue the public hearing <br />on SP-104 to May 18, 1982 at 8:00 P.M. and to request that the <br />applicant provide a more definitive parking study indicating a <br />particular need of this type of use and methods for obtaining more <br />parking through joint parking agreements with other businesses and <br />secondly that staff arrange a tour for the Planning Commission to <br />consider comparable types of facilities. <br />5 t.ye s - 1 Nay e ( L i vi n g S ton), Mot ion Car r i e d <br />