1997-08-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes August 26, 1997 Page 5 Council Business. continued LeFevere asked the date when they received the application. Mattila believes it was received August 1, and a concept plan was presented to the Planning Commission in July. Benke said the 60-day requirement to address the issue would begin August 1. Gunderman feels it is important the proposal be brought back to the Commission. Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Samuelson, to CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF LP-327, NC-I08, AND VN-315 TO THE SEPTEMBER 23,1997, COUNCIL MEETING AFTER PRESENTING ANY REVISIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION; FURTHER REQUEST STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, AND OWNER OF THE SMALLER PARCEL TO POSSIBLY FACILITATE A POTENTIAL PRIVATE PURCHASE OF THE SMALLER PARCEL; AND REVIEW OTHER OPTIONS THAT THE CITY MAY ASSIST IN THE PROCESS. 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. Mattila presented a request for a 17 ft. parking front yard setback variance and 3 ft. parking aisle width variance to construct four parking stalls in the front yard of 441-445 Old Hwy 8. Because they developed the site with insufficient parking, the applicant, Kallestad, and Bob's Auto (east parcel owner) agreed to lease 10 parking stalls and share the existing 14 stalls which then provided a total of 65 spaces. If the variance is approved, the four stalls must be removed within 10 years and the landscape berms restored. It is felt that in 10 years, Hwy 8 may be reduced to two lanes to allow on-street parking. If not, Kallestad could ask for an extension. The basement and first floor can only be used for warehouse and manufacturing purposes, and existing tenants can occupy the building and expand. A variance is needed to allow for a 15 ft. wide parking aisle in the front yard parking area. Hardships include: Hwy 8 widening; the creation of a lot behind the site which reduced setback areas; reduced parking aisle widths; and the number of parking stalls required by code. The Planning Commission recommended denial on the basis of no unique circumstances or undue hardship. LeFevere believes past and current owners collectively created the hardship. Covenants which should have provided shared parking were never recorded so the current owner came into this situation. Council should consider the variance on its own merits rather than an expedite route to avoid legal consequences. If the variance was a condition of approval in the settlement, granting the variance would insure available parking. Another condition could insure that the uses are not allowed to change in such a way which exacerbates the problem. He recommends a resolution of findings for denial. However, if Council wishes to approve the variance, a condition should be added to reflect it is contingent on execution of a settlement agreement. Larson questioned why they approved the 1978 expansion when it eliminated 13 stalls. Then, Mattila speculates there was ample parking behind the building, and the City wished to create more greenspace on H wy 8. Benke said the approval was condition on shared and storage lot parking, however, that agreement was never recorded. Samuelson confirmed that 4th St. does not allow for additional parking. Mark Murlawski, previous owner, agrees that mistakes were made, but there is merit in the variance subject to a global settlement. He asked why they are requesting the four parking stalls. Mattila said Kallestad requested the four stalls for customer parking. Council Business Nutec Proposal Report 97-194 Variance Request - Kallestad Report 97-195 Resolution 97-062