1987-09-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes September 22, 1987 Williams recalled, because the building was far from fully occu- pied at that time, it was deemed a suitable site for the MIS as a temporary measure; and believed those making the decision thought it would not be quite as great a conflict to put an educational facility in an industrial zone at that point as it would be on a permanent basis. Williams did not believe this is an appropriate site for the Christian Grammar School (CGS). Gunderman concurred with Williamsls comments; and feels there should be a better location. Brandt asked if the school views this site as a permanent loca- tion; Mattila understands it is to be a permanent facility, and they are willing to put in changes to comply with building codes and fire codes to meet the requirements for a school. However, in a search for an alternate site Mattila reported Faith Christian Reformed Church is interested in housing the school in their base- ment, and CGSls principal IS son is interested in building a multi- purpose structure in New Brighton in which space would be leased to the CGS. ,With regard to the question of a special use permit, Rick Martens, Executive Vice President of Winfield Developments, Inc., felt if the situation in the area were so dangerous, special use applica- tions for all of the uses would all be turned down. Martens re- called this project was a joint development with the city and Win- field (acquired and planned the site together) and even though it is in an 1-2 zoning, it has 1-1 contemplated uses (ie. day care centers, fitness centers, schools). Martens stated originally part of the reason for the cityls in- volvement to participation, through tax increment financing in part, was designed to provide an opportunity for small and medium sized businesses to locate in New Brighton; this kind of building is common for a school setting. When the school first moved into this center, the building was probably 60-70% occupied, but Martens stated Winfield would not have planned a school on the basis of an approval that said you cannot put another school or classroom situation on that site; Winfield would have far better off putting in long-term tenants rather than MIS. The MIS was approved as to use; the only ques- tion was that it was possibly temporary, it was never absolutely determined that it was temporary (they might have been there for 2-30 years); there was no stipulation they had to move out; the only requirement was, if it became permanent, Winfield would have to apply the codes which they are now prepared to do for a perma- nent school use. In response to Benkels question, Martens recalled the inspector stated if it becomes a permanent use, it would have to be brought up to code (fire and perhaps plumbing codes); the subject arose when they applied for the permits tv finish the space; the response was there were some things that would not be enforced Page 6