04-20-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zisla stated he was puzzled about the method of computing the parking requirement. The remodel/expansion would add floor space to the facility. Does the total building size determine the number of parking spaces required under the Code? Teague responded that the length of the pews determines church parking (seating capacity). The ancillary uses such as administration are not considered in the computation. Zisla asked if the ancillary space can expand and still have no bearing on the parking computation. Teague stated that was correct and is typical of other cities’ zoning codes. Zisla stated that being typical does not mean it is right. Baker stated that, according to the planning report, parking is less than the standard. The requirement is for 533 spaces; 253 spaces are available. In the past, the Commission has been strict regarding parking when considering a church site plan, however, this request is unusual in that the addition itself does not affect the required parking computation. Livingston stated that two commissioners were members of the parish. If the commissioners are recused, the vote would lack a quorum. Zisla commented that he did not see how the commissioners who are parish members would benefit personally from the approval. Mark Lambert, an attorney, stated the Minnesota Statutes defines conflict as occurring if a voting member has an economic interest in the outcome of the decision. Just being a member of the congregation would not fit such a definition. Larson said that, when the Christ the King Church expanded, Larson was the only Council member who was not a member of that church. The expansion would not have been possible if Larson had been the only Council member qualified to vote. R-144, Motion by Baker, seconded by O’Brien, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF REZONING THE SUBJECT R-1A,SFRB-4,DBSP-212, PROPERTY FROM INGLE AMILY ESIDENTIAL TO OWNTOWN USINESS AND . 5 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS General Business Reconsideration of a Side Street Setback Variance Request and Site Plan Super America (SA) Teague reviewed the planning report concerning reconsideration of the side street setback variance request and new site plan as directed by the City Council. Teague showed graphics of the site. Zisla asked for clarification on the drive aisles. Teague showed the distance between the pump islands on the graphic. O’Brien asked if SA could meet the requirement by moving the building north. Teague responded the Dairy Queen’s property would be a consideration. According to the Fire Code, the buildings must be at least ten feet apart. According to the Code setback requirements, SA could have a zero lot line setback, but the building would be within the ten-foot requirement. O’Brien asked for interpretation of a line on the landscape plan. Teague responded it is a property line incorrectly labeled as a setback line. The building would be five feet from the property line to maintain the ten-foot separation. Baker asked if the Fire Code would accept a fire wall instead of the ten-foot separation. Teague responded that the SA building would have to construct a fire wall to meet the requirements. O’Brien asked if the north wall of the proposed building had any openings. Tim Keane, representing SA stated that the north wall is a four-hour fire wall. O’Brien stated that the fire wall would protect the Dairy Queen. O’Brien said that, visually, not crowding the Dairy Queen building would be better. Baker stated that the drive aisle on the south side of the pumps is wider than the drive aisle on the north side of the pumps. If the widths were the same, would the setbacks be met? Mueller commented the width on the I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\04-20-99.WPD 3