06-20-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Approved Zisla inquired if the property was zoned B4, how many of the variances would be removed. Gundlach replied that most of the variances would be removed. Zisla asked if the reason why staff is not recommending a zoning change is because of the residential units to the north and east of the property. Gundlach replied that was correct. O’Keefe stated that the building is orientated to the front of the property, for a friendly pedestrian feel, yet all access is in the back of the building. Baker voiced concern that there is almost no green space on the site and wonders if the site is being over built. Peter Murlowski, and John Stenglein, Timber Craft replied that the Pratt-Ordway property known as Main Street Village has a similar amount of green area that this development is proposing. The entire front of the building and along the south western corner of the property would be green. They would buffer the condensing units for the air conditioners, similarly to what Ordway did, with plants and landscaping. Baker asked where the condensing units would go. Murlowski replied that they would most likely go on the north end of the building. Zisla asked the applicants if they have a plan for an entrance on the front of the building. Stenglein replied that the type of owners that will be filling the spaces would not have walk in customers and parking along Old Hwy 8 in that area is prohibited, if there was parking allowed in that area, then a front entrance would be considered. O’Keefe inquired if condensers would be allowed in the set back areas. Gundlach replied that since the building to the north is also zoned B2, the set back in that area would be zero, so there is not issue with a set back at that area. Stenglein stated that the proposed plan shows five potential units, which may drop to three, with two condensers at the northern end of the site and one on the southern end. Mann inquired from staff if the preferred method is to approve the variances, instead of doing a spot rezone for this site. Gundlach replied that is staff’s recommendation. Gundlach added that if the applicant would like to keep the bump outs on the front of the building, staff is recommending that the building be shrunk width wise by a foot and an half more and still meet the variance guidelines. Zisla inquired from staff if they had discussed the effect of granting a lot of variances for this property versus rezoning it. Gundlach replied that ideally staff would like to rezone the property, but staff is taking into account that there are only two business-zoned properties at this location and they are very small. Based upon the size of the sites and not wanting to “spot zone” the preferred method would be to grant the variances. Zisla inquired who owns the property. Gundlach replied that the City does. Zisla asked what the undo hardships are for the variances. Gundlach replied that do to the size constraints of the site, and the close proximity of the residential sites, the build able area for the site once it meets all of the set backs is an unrealistic standard. Baker agrees with Zisla, that if the site is being built to B4 standards, then it should be rezoned to that. Fernelius replied that the City must look at the Comprehensive Plan for this site, if it’s guided for anything else other than redevelopment or B4 then the Comprehensive Plan would have to be amended also. Gundlach added that the Comprehensive Plan will be updated for the entire block with the mandatory 2008 update that is coming up. Fernelius replied that with the comments and the concerns that the Commission is bringing forward, that staff is willing to re-look I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\Minutes\2006\06-20-2006.docPage 13 of 15