05-20-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Baker asked whether Pletscher’s needed Planning Commission or City Council action to move the curb cut in the existing parking lot since the dimensions of the parking lot are not changed. Mattila responded no action would be needed as long as there was no building expansion. O’Brien stated, then no Council action is needed to change the curb cut and they may maintain the existing parking lot as it is. Mattila responded affirmatively. Johnson pointed out the water service failed and the parking lot was dug up and Pletscher’s was waiting to do all the work at once. If the applicant moves the curb cut and does nothing else, then there will be no curbing done at all. The owners would not be opposed to just moving the curb cut and leave the parking lot as it is. It was my understanding that both the County and the City wanted both curb cuts altered. That brings up a new issue. The north curb cut is undergoing change. Mattila pointed out the curb cut is a Ramsey County request. Johnson said that was part of the improvements to Old Highway 8. The important point is that the parking lot needs to be redone as a result of moving the south curb cut and shrinking the north curb cut. Once the applicant does that, we perceive that the rest of the parking lot will be put into as complete a form as possible, which we thought required Planning Commission and Council action. Even though there were no building additions at this point, we thought that had to be documented in a site plan approval process. Johnson stated that perhaps it was not required based on the comments tonight. Johnson said there may have been a misunderstanding on his part and the part of the Pletschers. At the same time, the applicant wants the curb cuts. The curb cuts will be put in and we want to put the parking lot in place and put it to rest as best we can based on the information we have at this time. The building additions are projects that are anticipated. We perceived that, if we are going to document that, we need to have an understanding. If we cannot get that understanding, then we will have to go to whatever options that are available to the applicant. The plan we brought before you tonight gave you all the things we thought we needed to do for the foreseeable future. If there are problems with that, so be it. We would prefer action tonight rather than a tabling because it just puts off the decision. Johnson said he did not know what more he could bring to the Planning Commission other than building elevations of a building we would be building in a year a two. The important thing is that the applicant would like some action tonight and guidance, if it is appropriate. Mattila said he could perhaps shed some light on these issues. Mattila said he only saw this plan with the building additions proposed. A building proposal naturally brings in the nonconforming use and variance process. The question of moving the curb cuts is strictly an engineering process through Ramsey County and the City’s Engineering Department. As long as the curb cut is at least 50 feet from Campus Drive it is acceptable as far as zoning is concerned. Whenever a building addition is proposed, the more formal review processes automatically follow. If the applicant’s desire is to move curb cuts, then this becomes an administrative process. LP-324,VN-312NC-107 Motion by Baker, seconded by O’Brien, TO DENY AND ON THE GROUNDS OF PC INADEQUATE INFORMATION FOR THE LANNING OMMISSION TO ACT ON THE VARIANCE AND DUE TO . THE NONCONFORMITIES IN THE PARKING LOT Zisla asked if this action gives them the information they need for the condemnation hearings. Zisla said he hoped it did not give them such information. Lindall said he would imagine the Pletschers will argue the variance has been denied, but he felt the important thing would be for the Commission to document the fact of the lack of information was the reason for the denial. Lindall said he thought that would significantly undercut the argument that the variance had been denied. Zisla said he felt the Commissioners would give any application with bona fide information provided a fair hearing and judge such an application on the merits. However, what we have before us is not ready to be decided. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\05-20-97.WPD 8