CR 91-127 Concept Review - Well Site
'.
.
.
.
(
'\
l
.m:'
1- ~
o P K \ ~
Council Report CR91-127
1 y
\
o
May 30, 1991
CONCEPT REVIEW - WELL SITE
ProDosed,Aotion.
This is a Concept Review whichi requires no formal action.
Comments by the Council would be helpful to the applicant in
preparing any further applications.
Overview.
Last summer Marcus Corporation was granted a Conditional Use
Permit to construct a 6000 square foot retail building on
this site. Since the approyal date of the Conditional Use
Fermi tthe redevelopment agreement with Marcus Corporation
for the development of th,e site has ,expired. The city
choose not to extend the redevelopment agreement.
since the redevelopment agreement has been terminated the I
site can by developed by other groups. Schatlein Associates
has submitted a proposal for the site. His proposal
consists of 3000 square feet for a video rental store and
3500 square feet for a convenience store. The parking is
located along 2nd Street and Blake Road.
primary
o
Issues to Consider.
Are the proposed uses, the type of use the City
Council desires on this site?
What are the staffs concerns with the site plan?
o
su~portinq Doouments.
o Analysis of Issues
o Location Map
o site plan
-.
.
.
;;-.
primary Issues to Consider.
o Are proposed uses the type of uses the City Council
desires on this site?
The staff has asked both the Planning Commission and the
City Council for direction on the use for the well site.
Overall it was felt general B-3 commercial uses would be
appropriate with the following restrictions:
- no gas sales ,
- not a heavy traffic generator
.
The two uses proposed seem to fulfill the direction given to
the staff. The proposed uses are both retail uses and are
similar to the uses that were approved with the Marcus
proposal.
Both uses are permitted in the B-3 district. It also
appears from the preliminary site plan submitted that the
zoning requirements are met.
o What are the staffs oonoerns with the site plan?
This is only a concept review so many of the details of the
plan are not outlined on the map. However, there are a few
issues the applicant should be aware of before the final
plan is submitted.
The residential area to the west and north need to be
buffered. 'I'he previous plan showed ,a fence between the
residential area and the subject site. A fence would seem
to be acceptable. The apartment complex to the north does
not have windows looking onto this site. Also, the
apartment complex to the west is separated from this site by
a parking area.
A second concern is the access to' the si te. The last
applicant Marcus Corporation had been trying to secure an
access from Blake Road from the County. To my knowledge
Marcus Corporation has only been able to receive approval of
a right-in. The main access to the site would be from 2nd
street N. E. In reviewing the access point previously with
Benshoof and Associates it was recommended that it be
located along the westerly property line.
.
.
.
1
,
,NOTES FROM ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING
Bill Schatlein appeared before the commission' and reviewed
the proposed development. The Commission discussed the
access to the site, buffering the residential neighborhood,
and the proposed uses of the site. It was noted that access
to Blake Road will have to be granted by the county.
Jody Breen, the manager of the Hopkins Arches, appeared
before the Commission. She was concerned with the
following:
o cars parking in the Arches parking area
o screening of the residential district
o site would be used as a "hang-out"
o there is a school bus stop near 2nd street access
Ms. Breen suggested this site be left as open space.
\
I Ken wright, owner of Market on Blake, appeared before the
commission. Mr. Wright was concerned about the number of
convenience stores in the immediate area.
Mr. Schatlein stated that he brought this before, the
commission for a reaction to the proposal. If the
Commission reacted favorably to this proposal, he would look
for tenants. If no tenants can be found, he may propose
different uses.
This proposal was brought to the Commission to get direction
on the uses for the site and find out if the proposed Uses
are acceptable.
zpnotes
(2) ~ ~
~~t
~I
f,
I
I
1t::J
1 ~ ~
~
~I ~ .
~
------~ I V) .
)...
l~
S
I ~ '
l~
,
(l) ~I ~ ~.
,.~
. ,
'1
\
(3) .
1045
1050
(9) 8
1110
(37)
- /
(/8)
ST
------,
----~
11 : r
;~~ , ~I I
; D..~ I mo j.
." ~ cry
------.I"" ~
PAR~ \-,.J
~ 11
NE.
900
1010
E
(II)
(10)
..-
""
, , ""
./
./
""
./
3) 9
REGISTERED
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ (8)
/ . H
/
/
I
K
(9)
-',/"
....
".--
......
,/
,/
""
/
/
4
..-
,....
/"
N
(/4) 07}
/~
/'
/'
,/.
,/
J
./
........
(20)
- ------
.
(36)
@)
, (
<;)
\\I
,....
~~
~.
10-, v
-.
~J
w
II
\ \
1/
CONVENIENCE STORE
3500 sq, ft.
.
c
a:
w
~
<
-I
m
-;
VIDEO RENTAL
3000 sq, ft.
ZJ
.'
~~~
~~~
?,~O
~~
~ ~~;~"~~~~
MIllER
HANSON
WESTERBECK
. SaL
ARCHlTEClS INC'
CJD
DC]
PROPO'SED SITE DEVELOPMENT
'1
1&ffl<t. l'1ql
'U01...~..tA\'E"".Jt
\lIlfl.~!:"'~IS Ul/IIt'Oolts"r... I~;:J
'~'~'S':1I ......q.J3:.~':