1996-08-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes of August 13, 1996 Council Business. continued Mattila said the single and two family homes located west of Hwy 8 from 6th St. to Co. Rd. E will not be impacted. The moratorium only affects multi-family, commercial, and industrial developments that require site plan review. Benke believes that extensive development and infrastructure construction should not occur until analysis is complete. Mattila was contacted by the owners of USF Holland wishing to expand their parking lot to relieve current on-street parking problems. City Attorney Charlie LeFevere said the moratorium involves a broad range of land uses and defming every conceivable circumstance which may arise is unrealistic. It is possible to make amendments if a situation is not considered a major revision. For example, parking lots of a certain size or capital investments of less than $20,000 could be exempt. In its current form, it does not have flexibility for change, but it can be amended by removing properties or types of improvements. Benke noted current problems with trains blocking 10th St. and other crossings due to the north/south spur being a major switching line. Mattila said because there is not a south/east spur return, the train is forced to back up and then go forward which causes delays at 10th and 8th streets. The City has not received a proposal from the railroad, and any improvements would most likely occur when the 5th Ave. extension is studied. Benke agrees that the USF Holland site should remain in the ordinance, but suggested an exemption for the parking lot being that it does not appear to threaten long term planning. LeFevere suggests that rather than exempting all parking lot expansions, staff could review the merits of an application then make amendments to the ordinance. Bob Mooney, USF Holland, noted their current on-street parking problems, and asked which areas will be included in the moratorium. Mattila verified that USF Holland's building and parking lot are included in the moratorium. Mooney does not have issue with the moratorium, but noted the need for a parking surface. Concerning the Cadwallader proposal, Mattila said there could be potential for redevelopment in surrounding areas. The proposal appears to comply with R-3B and parking standards, but Mattila has not gone through the proposal meticulously. City Manager Matthew Fulton feels that because the current Comp. Plan was developed in 1987, and it makes sense to update the plan prior to allowing new development. This appears to conflict with the Cadwallader proposal, but it is in the betterment of the community to make sure future development is consistent with long range vision. Benke understands Fulton's comments, and asked if there are plans to change the zoning on this parcel to other than residential. Fulton said the area could remain residential, but there are no guarantees. LeFevere said in order to lift the moratorium at the earliest date, staff with Council guidance, needs to determine appropriate exemptions. Staff should consider each proposal on its own merit. The parking lot proposal appears to be an amendment candidate. However, the Cadwallader proposal involves tiner details of a site plan review, rezoning, and redrawing of boundaries which are more involved than a parking lot. The question is whether R-3B zoning is acceptable after the analysis is complete. Williams verified the Cadwallader proposal has not been before the Planning Commission. Mattila said that if Council decides to exempt this area, then the proposal goes before the Planning Commission for zoning and site plan review. Page 4 Council Business Highway 8 Moratorium Report 96-182 Ordinance 623