5.16 - 6.18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

07-28-1998 09:57AM SAND COMPANIES INC. 320 202 3139 P.03 • • ,.. 1 • .• • .. . . • . • . . • • i . . . • . • • . : i ; . : .. • , • • • • :iii . . . • • • . . . i • • • . .: - Conditional Use Permit. ' 2 . gizi4 ?' '' • • • .G0a , 41);. ••• . . I. We recently held a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, July 23f'''.to " ... inform the residents about our project and to answer any questions they „ . . • • ; . may have One of the items we covered was the elevations Of the . • : building. Not one comment was raised about the look of the building's . : • • • 1 • . . , • . side elevation, so I am not exactly::sure who has taiSed this issue with staff. Also,•our floor layout does not:allow for widows at the end of • • . . . . ' ;, • ' .. . ' . : hallway because we have linen rooms in this area with shelving on each : • : wall:. lln addition, the exterior wills of the*end units have turtiiiiire • . • • •. . . .• • ; • ' across:most of the exterior wall, thus making it impossible: to install .: • • . • i . :• . . ' • , windows in this*area: ' We feel this significant additional cost is iit* : . . • .. . , • justified. . '. •• : ' . . . . . . . . _ , . • ' i• " • • i - ' • : 2. • The original PUD agreement was for a retail center and an antoMotive • :: . . . • center Most users of these facilities have a predetermined destination , . • . . .• • . . :•' . ; in mind, In the case•of,the proposed hotel, most of the transient traffic ; • . , . .. . . . . i. : . • ' .. • will be driven by impulse identifiCation. The highway location choSen i : ;: .• • •. : dependent onthis transient traffic.from Highway 169.such as daily . business travelers To limitthis identification 'will limit the hotels • . : • ' • occupancy as we have experienced in our other:hotel location S that • . .• : ' . ,• have sign heights that range from'35 7 75 feet. The thirty foot sign we • ' • are proposing is an absolute minimum we are comfortable ereCting. , . • • . • •: AlsO, with the addition of the future pedestrian bridge (and possibility . of tree planting on the right-of-way), the signage visibility will WOOzed • from southbound traffic with only a twenty foot sign. ' The neeklJoi' : minimum sign height of 30 feet is critical to the success of the hotel as has been demonstrated in all of our locations. • : ' • , : • 30K '• : , ; :. : ' : .: .• 4. Seeblcrw. • • . , 5. If the Office/dental lot is sold before or during construction of the'hotel and:buyer agrees to pay for parking improvements, they Will be put in• conjunction-With the hotel. Btit if the lot is not sold, only the pzirking• ' needed for the hotel will be constructed. This is because there Will be I . " no definite footprint of the office/dental building which could effect the exact parking layout and would limit a potential buyers •building: • : placement. . 6. The amendment of the PUD should include the proposed future patkin : on the engineering plans. As discussed with staff,the set back fror9 thed MNDOT lot to the north is currently 30 feet because of the:iion- • Conforming residential use. It was made clear that in the future, itthe current use Changes, the use will likely be changed to commercial Which would only require a 10 foot setback as ShoWn. We would like to have' . this future parking approved with the PUD amendment because K its , , : • : importance to the development along with the fact that future staffsiand • governmental officials may change. / • ,, .: . : . . • . .•. , . • - Planning Commission-Pagi 2