02-16-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

hearing and recommend that the Council adopt an ordinance extending the time period in which the MX zoning would take effect. Thomson stated that, in terms of options, the Commission could continue the hearing. The problem would be that the MX zoning would take effect March 1. Therefore, continuing the public hearing would be the same as a denial of the request. The Commission could send the item to the Council with no recommendation and simply outline the Commission’s concerns and the lack of information provided by AAA Cooper. Or the Commission could recommend approval or denial based on the information available. The planning staff could provide information specified by the Planning Commission to the Council. Baker asked if anyone else would like to speak on the issue. Eric Galetz, of Bebet Realty Company, the current owner of property. Gallick asked the Commission to recommend approval of the Special Use Permit and recommend approval of the variance, subject to satisfaction of the Commission’s concerns prior to the City Council meeting. PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Schmitz, TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING Livingston stated that, if the Planning Commission closes the public hearing, the item cannot be continued. Livingston asked Baker if that were his intention. Baker responded that continuing the public hearing would be the same as a denial because the MX zoning takes effect March 1. Baker called for a vote on the motion. 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. Baker said he would favor recommending denial. If the applicant can come up with an acceptable site plan, the Commission could move denial and send the Council a list of the Commission’s concerns. Baker stated the following should be addressed: ? 14th Street needs to be addressed ? Handicap parking and handicap access to the building needs to be shown on the print ? Landscaping must be shown Baker stated there are actions that could make the proposal more acceptable. Providing the Commission with a print that shows features and details that are not on the site is unacceptable. Saying that this is AAA Cooper’s standard print is unacceptable. Schiferl stated that, since a variance is predicated on a site plan, the Commission has no other option than to recommend denial. Teague said that staff recommended approval of the site plan and nonconforming use and denial of the variance. The Commission could add conditions to the nonconforming use permit to address the issues brought forward this evening. Baker stated he had a problem with the site plan. The plan should address screening and setbacks. Motion by Baker, seconded by Schopf, VN-321,, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL DUE TO LACK OF HARDSHIP AND NC-113. BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS THE NONCONFORMING USE OF THE SITE 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. Special Use Permit & Site Plan Crosson Limited Partnership/Kolstad Company, Inc. Teague reviewed the planning report concerning the item. Teague showed photos of the site. Livingston asked if Kolstad would demolish the tower for the automated inventory system. Teague stated the tower is not being used at this point and the Kolstad Company does not have a use for the tower. Teague asked the applicant to address the use of the tower. Chris Barnes, an attorney representing Crosson Limited 8 I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\02-16-99.WPD