04-19-2004 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

«M-29f3 Pt|t2tf4 PcrtiBtBt Zontog Ordimuicc ScctioDS Sec. 7S-642. Pennit •pplicttion. All applications for a building permit in any B*1 letaii sales business district shail be reviewed by the council and may be referred to the planning conunission for review. Sec. 78*646. Area, height, lot width, setback requirements and design requirements. (c) Frontyar^. The minimum front yard shall be 20 feet. (d) Rear yards. The minimum rear yard shall be 30 feet, a side yard adjacent to any R district shall be 1S feet, and a side yard adjacent to a street shall be ten feet. (e) Setback requirements. No building shall be nearer than 3S feet to any front lot line. }5 feet from any rear lot line, IS feet from any side lot line, or 3S feet to a side lot line adjacent to a street; exeqn abutting or across the street from an R district, no building shall be less than 35 feet from such lot line. Sec. 78-644. Conditional uses. Within the B-1 retail sales business district, no structure or land shall be used for one of the following uses without a conditiorui use permit; (3) Restaurant (class I), in which food is served to customers while seated at counter or table, or cafeteria, in which food is selected by a customer while going through a line and taken to a table for constimption. Neither live entertainment nor intoxicating liquor sales are permitted in class I restaurants. Backgronnd This application was originally heard before the Planning Commission at the March IS, 2004 meeting. The applicant presented three plans, all with drive-through facilities, one of which was passed out at the meeting. Staffs recommendation was for the applicant to work on a plan that doesn't incorporate a drive through, which is presented as the alternate plan in this report The applicant still is pursuing a drive-through and has presented a plan that hu been reviewed by an engineer per staffs recommendation (see Exhibit D). The details of both plans are discussed below. The ^iplicant also met with Building Official Lyle Oman to discuss the issues of converting the residential use to conunercial. No issues, other than the handicap ramp, were fSKtors to be considered when ^iproving the specifics of the site plan. The applicant also met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, which is not requiring any on-site mitigation for storm water. Site Dctaib of Drivc-Throagh Plan NEGATIVES The same safety and fimetiorudity issues still exist with this plan, although at a lesser extent frtan the previous plans. The exit for the drive-through aisle remains very close to the intersection of Lyric and the City owned parking lot's drive aisle (I S'). Under this plan the ^jplicant is proposing 2 parking stalls, which are forced to back into traffic when leaving the site. I i .lii