02-20-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved space, and the existing southern building will be used as a support building for storage. He added that in the future the company may add more employees, which is why the residential lot was purchased, so additional parking could be added. Zisla asked if there is a formula for determining the number of employees per parking spaces and how many more spaces are required for the new building size. Gundlach replied that the parking ordinance requires one space per 350 square feet and 21 spaces would be required. This is based on building square footage and not the number of employees. The applicant has proposed adding 3 additional spaces with the rest shown as proof of parking. Zisla stated that if there is space for additional 21 employees, an argument could be made that they could have an impact on the park system and asked if the residential park dedication fee uses a formula to determine the fee. Gundlach replied that she does not know if a formula was used to determine the residential fee. Zisla replied that he remembers when he originally asked this question there was no study that was referenced for the industrial/commercial park dedication fee, except for what other cities do. He stated that it begs the question of who makes the recommendation to Council, what is the nature of the recommendation, and what the dollar amount will be. Fernelius stated that those are all excellent questions. He added that there is a process in the ordinance that allows the land dedication of ten percent to be reduced by the Council. The process must be started by the applicant approaching the Council to ask for the reduction, and then it potentially would be referred to the Parks, Environmental, and Recreation Commission. Staff does not have an answer regarding the process or formula and is left to enforce the code as it is written. Wells stated that they are incorporating three plats into one plat; it is not like they are taking a new undeveloped parcel and proposing a development. If they were doing a new development they could carve out a portion of the land and dedicate it. He asked if it make sense to have a park dedication fee for this type of a re-plating. Baker replied that he believes that is an administrative question and not appropriate for the Planning Commission to decide. Howard stated that he agrees with Zisla that the ordinance needs a formula to help determine the fee, so there is a fair expectation of what costs to expect and an appeal process if you didn't agree with what was determined. Zisla feels that the Commission should state in it Council recommendation if a park dedication fee is warranted. Zisla asked under what circumstances could the recommendation of the 10 percent of land dedication be changed and why did staff decided on the ten percent. Fernelius stated that the ordinance as written doesn't give staff the ability to recommend a reduced fee, but it does provide that desecration to the Council. In an effort to sum up the remaining component of the application, Wells stated that the reason why they are asking for the variance is because they are trying to connect the buildings as atheistically as possible, and to clean up the site a bit by pulling recycling and garbage inside the building. He stated that on the southern building's north facing eastern wing there is an existing outside door and if they were to meet the twenty foot setback requirement, the new wall would go into the middle of the door, which is on a I:\COMMTSSTONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2007\02-20-2007.docPage 3 of 7