04-20-99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City thought it was in its best interest to get the outside storage cleaned up and allow the additional building, it is perhaps in the best interest of the City. Zisla said it sounded like the City Attorney is saying no precedent exists, but he does not have a definitive conclusion on the matter. Teague responded that may be the case. Zisla stated his concern then stands. Baker stated he had no problem with the two stories, however, to allow an expansion of a site plan that was already an expansion of the approved site plan would be difficult to approve. Beisswenger stated he did not know if he could afford to do the northern addition. The outside storage is the important issue to address now. Baker stated that if Beisswenger’s builds the 4,000 square foot outside storage on the north, then Beisswenger’s would be within the site plan of 1987, which would be acceptable. Beisswenger stated they would be adding parking, cleaning up the property, and adding security. The concept plan is full of pluses. Livingston asked Beisswenger if they only did the back part, would he still put in the parking in the back. Beisswenger responded that would come about if Beisswenger’s does do the warehouse piece. Within a year or two years, Beisswenger’s can still do the 12,000 square foot addition, but the upper story is the gray area. If Beisswenger’s builds the 12,000 square foot addition, the storage needs would not be as great. Beisswenger’s wants the 4,000 square foot outside storage area strictly for power equipment. The upper storage would be for hardware and seasonal items. Some merchandise comes in on pallets and would probably be stored in the 4,000 square foot outside area. The outside storage area would be built before anything else. Baker asked what would happen if the north addition would be only 8,000 square feet so that the total of the additions are 12,000 square feet. If the 1987 site plan is modified, the 12,000 square foot addition would be within the intent of the plan. Beisswenger responded he did not see much difference between a parking lot and grass and a parking lot and a building. Beisswenger stated he understood the density issue here, but said he felt it could be dealt with differently. O’Brien stated that density is a relative matter. If density is handled correctly, it is not an issue. If the parking is adequate and the proposed additions would make an existing neighborhood business more viable, O’Brien stated he would like to see the Commission find a way to make the proposal happen. Livingston agreed with O’Brien. The interest rates are low; therefore, it may be a good time for this expansion. Beisswenger stated he would look into costs after he gets direction from the City about what can happen. Baker stated the Commission needs an opinion letter from the City Attorney. O’Brien agreed with Baker. O’Brien stated the City Attorney may not be adamantly opposed to the proposed addition. Baker asked how this differs from the existing site plan about parking. Is everything the same, except the 4,000 square foot outside storage? Teague responded there is more parking. Baker stated the parking in the front was not on the 1987 site plan. Baker asked Beisswenger if he would do that row of parking right now with the 4,000 square foot outside storage without the other addition. Beisswenger responded the parking lot would be the number one priority, plus the back parking and the storage area. Beisswenger stated he would like to do the whole thing at once, but the parking and the back storage would be the priorities. After that, the northern addition may be feasible. Beisswenger stated he could afford to take care of the parking issue and the cold storage area now. Baker stated that giving Beisswenger any recommendation was difficult. The consensus is that the Commission would like to something worked out here. The Commission needs to get an opinion from I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1999\04-20-99.WPD 7