City Council Minutes 1999 09 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There is an off-site issue related to the proposed road connecting existing 96th Street to Highway 42. There have been various City policy documents that have included the proposal for an arterial road and would connect existing 96th Street to Highway 42 with a grade-separated crossing of the railroad tracks. Conceptual alignments and design studies for the roadway were completed several years ago. Some of the proposed alignments would require a small portion of this property for right-of-way or would at least take the roadway very near the property line and very near the proposed building footprint. Staff is not requesting any right-of-way dedication; however, land use compatibility is a concern. There is the potential for significant noise and visual impact from the road that could be detrimental to the use and enjoyment of the property for a restaurant facility. This concern has been incorporated onto the PUD. Related to the roadway issue is the potential impact of the city's 1041 regulations on this property. In November 1998, the city adopted ordinance No. 1289, series 1998, creating additional regulations pertaining to areas and activities of state interest. Any area within a one-mile radius of an existing or proposed arterial highway interchange is now required to obtain a 1041 development permit from City Council prior to issuance of any building permits on the property. Wood explained that the intersection of relocated 96th Street and State Highway 42 may meet the definition of a proposed arterial highway interchange. The determination hinges on 1) whether the relocated 96th Street has officially been proposed, and 2) whether Highway 42 is considered a limited access highway. The City has not finally determined whether those two criteria are met. If it is determined that they are met, then this development and others in this general area would be subject to review under Ordinance 1289, and if the development permit is not approved by the City, then this final PUD approval would be void. The City Council reviewed this application as an informal 'discussion/direction' item on May 18, 1999. Council raised concerns regarding; compatibility with the new road, particularly given the unknown alignment; potential shortfall of parking; and the height and overall design of the tower element, particularly as viewed from the Old Town area. The building is sited at the far north end of the site, to take advantage of the better views in that location as well as to utilize the flatter and more regular shaped portion of the lot for more efficient parking. The pedestrian paths and amenities throughout the proposal are a strong component of the design, including a wide path that extends through the parking lot. A prominent drop-off zone is provided at the main entry, and outdoor seating is provided in patios and decks on both the first and second levels. Applicable building and parking setbacks from the Commercial Development Design Standards & Guidelines are generally met or exceeded. The applicant is requesting one exception, along the east property line. The applicant has proposed a five-foot setback rather than the required ten-foot setback. The applicant proposes to establish a 10-foot grading and landscape easement on the adjoining property line, in order to compensate partially for the shortfall. 11