1987-09-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~'r-"""""""'.~ I I I Council Meeting Minutes September 22, 1987 because if it is really a hazard the city would not allow anyone in the building, but it is a sprinkled cement building; regarding Standard A, it clearly indicates no house of ill repute, bar, or businesses of that nature should be there, and stated the children are not a threat to anyone. Martin summarized that Winfield Developments, Inc. made improvements for MIS and was never told no other school could replace it. Martin cited an Eden Prairie case where a developer was denied occupancy of his space after it was built when the city knew the intent of the building from the be- ginning. With regard to page four of the staff report regarding the codes, Gunderman questioned why the CGS/MIS children would be less impor- tant than other children where the schools have to meet the fire codes; Mattila, following a discussion with the current building official, understands if the site were occupied on a permanent basis the improvements would need to be made. Gunderman had no objection to the children attending the school at this location as they should be able to go to school wherever they choose; however, the guidelines should be the same. Brandt believes there are reasons to approve the special use per- mit and is concerned with fire codes; commented on the suitability of the facility, being a parent of an MIS student (none of the parents were dissatisfied because they knew it was temporary and were looking toward something more suitable), stated after school hours the students did play on a piece of grass on the north side and suspects that will continue if there is any type of after- school care, and, even though all the requirements could be satis- fied for a special use permit, she did not believe it is an ap- propriate place for a long-term school and hopes CGS will pursue having an appropriate facility built near a recreation area. Blomquist concurred with Williams regarding the location but feels when the MIS was located there, there was a joint effort between the city, MIS, and Winfield to try to accomplish something within the city that would benefit the city, and the city had an Obliga- tion to that space that continues beyond the one use of MIS, and would be in favor of granting the special use permit, perhaps sub- ject to some conditions (all improvements necessary to bring the site up to code be met, issues regarding safety, etc.). Martens stated Winfield knew the MIS was probably temporary but it was not approved that way, there was no special use permit because it was temporary; a one year lease was signed with some extensions being given; and again indicated it was never stated it would have to be converted to another type of space in the future. Martens asked that Winfield be allowed to put in the improvements with a satisfactory lease with the tenant as that is the only way it will work from their point of view. Framuth further commented: would like his children to be as safe as other school children; would still prefer a one year waiver of building permits and special use permit to give them time to ex- plore alternative sites; if a special use is granted, the school Page 9 ,"-"