1997-08-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes August 26, 1997 Page 6 Council Business. continued Samuelson questioned whether the aisle widths are adequate. Mattila said the one way aisle requirement is 18 ft., but Kallestad is requesting a 15 ft. variance so that an existing sign base would not need to be moved. Samuelson suggested reducing the number of stalls to three, and moving the remaining stalls further to the east. Fulton believes this issue could continue to haunt the City, and current usage should be maintained so to eliminate any potential that future usage could intensify the problem. Benke objected to the tight parking aisle, and suggested elimination of stall 16 to widen the aisle. Murlawski asked if the widening could be accomplished by retaining the four stalls, but moving the sign base. Kallestad did not want to move the sign base. Motion by Benke, seconded by Samuelson, to DENY THE APPLICATION FOR AN AISLE WIDTH VARIANCE AND WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING VN-314 FOR A 20 FT. FRONT YARD VARIANCE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. APPLICANT SHALL APPLY TO THE CITY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THREE PARKING STALLS WITHIN 12 MONTHS AFTER DATE OF RESOLUTION AND SHALL COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 90 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT , VARIANCE SHALL LAPSE AND CEASE TO BE OF FURTHER FORCE AND EFFECT ON THE DATE TEN YEARS FROM DATE OF ISSUANCE OF SUCH BUILDING PERMIT AND PROPERTY OWNER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE THREE PARKING STALLS AND RESTORE THE BERM TO ITS ORIGINAL WIDTH AND CONDITION EXISTING AS OF THE DATE OF RESOLUTION; AND 2. THE BASEMENT AND FIRST FLOOR OF BUILDING MAY ONLY BE USED FOR WAREHOUSE AND MANUFACTURING PURPOSES OR FOR THE CONTINUED OR EXPANDED USE FOR OTHER PURPOSES BY EXISTING TENANTS; AND 3. VARIANCE IS CONDITIONED ON APPROVAL BY COUNCIL AND EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES IN LITIGATION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESOLVING ALL ISSUES RAISED IN SAID ACTION. 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. Mattila presented an amendment to the Planned Residential Development (PRD) to allow the overlay of commercial districts and allow such uses to be adjacent to residential districts. Allowing these developments could be achieved by hiring a consultant to prepare new standards as part of a new Mixed Use District; or to amend the existing PRD to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses. It is this latter method staff proposes at this time. The City Attorney has proposed the following amendments: 1) Section 7-030 (a), would be amended by adding the language; "...in any residential or commercial district adjacent to a residential district ...," Section 7-050 (b), would be amended by deleting that language which requires all commercial uses in a PRO to serve the residents of the PRD only, however, the language which requires the one-half of the residential units be constructed prior to the commercial uses being constructed would remain (This protects against PRD's being developed for commercial uses only). Section 7-060 (j), would be deleted. 2) 3) Council Business Variance Request - Kallestad Report 97-195 Resolution 97~062 PRD Amendment Report 97-196 Ordinance 633