11-16-1998 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#2416 TOLD Development November 10, 1998 Page 7 VI. Additional Notes 1. City agreed to vacate west half of Navarre Lane in prior application, 2. Access to Countv Road 19 : The southerly access is the same as approved for the prior bank/office/retail proposal. The northerly entrance onto 19 is moved slightly nearer the north property boundary than the prior approval, but still meets the required 10' setback. Driveways and curb cuts for business uses arc regulated by Section 6.05 of the municipal code. The proposed access plan appears to meet the standards of that section, with the exception that only one driveway access is nomially allowed for a business site. The second access was discussed at length during the prior proposal, and ultimeatley was approved. The circulation pattern for the current plan is quite similar to the earlier plan, counterclockwise around the building to accomodate the drive-thru. The second access is expected to provide safer egress for seiA'ice trucks leaving the site than would be afforded by a single access point. Hennepin County Dept, of Public Works has been requested to comment on the plan, and has noted the required removal of existing unused driveway aprons and concerns regarding the sign location (See E.xhibit H). 3. Access Connection to Culver's Site: This proposed access conection is similar to that approved for the bank/office/retail plan a year ago. Although there is no formal agreement proposed, it is anticipated that the Culver’s occasional overflow parking needs will by default be met by the Walgreen's parking... 4. Legal combination of the four tax parcels should be a condition of approval. 5.For purposes of the 60-dav review period, this application was considered as complete on October 13, 1998, the date on which we received the narrative, layout, and pylon sign diagrams. The 60 day period will e.xpire on December 13, 1998, therefore if this item is tabled by the Planning Commission on November 16, It will not be reviewed again until the January meeting, haence an extension of the 60 day review period will be required. Analysis Planning Commission should review and make recommendations on the noted variances (k>i coverage, hardcover, parking encroachment into yard areas, number of parking stalls, and sienage square footage and individual sion size. Sufficient hardship must exist in order for these variances to be granted. W Other than the signage variances, the need for variances is a function of the size of the building in