Laserfiche WebLink
City of New Brighton <br />June 9, 1981 <br />Page 3 <br />I <br />Motion by Janecek, seconded by Blomquist, to waive the <br />reading and adopt a RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT <br />AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP-98. <br />Motion by Benke, seconded by Blomquist, to amend the <br />motion by adding a point number five (5) under BE IT FURTHER <br />RESOLVED to read as follows: <br />That the applicant submit a dust and traffic <br />control plan for approval by the City Engineer. <br />Vote on amendment: 4 ayes - 0 nayes - motion carried <br />Vote on Main Motion as amended: 4 ayes - 0 nayes - motion carried <br />LP-115 <br />Mr. Harold Becker, applicant and Mr. Frances Schuck, SBEEPCarpet <br />architectwere present to answer questions. 8:03 - 8:16 p.m. <br />Mr. Tom Anthony, 990 1st St. NW questioned how the property Resolution No.24 44 <br />was going to be developed and where the parking was going Report No. 81-109 <br />to be on the site. <br />Mr. Schuck replied that the building would be set meeting <br />the proper setbacks towards the northwest part of the site <br />and that parking would be confined to the east and south <br />site of the project. <br />Councilman Benke asked.if access to the existing Becker <br />Carpet property from Old Highway 8 could possibly be closed <br />and a connection made through this site to the north. <br />Mr. Fritz Werdouschegg, 1501 23rd Ave. NW stated he felt <br />the Council had an opportunity to close the driveway on <br />Old Highway 8 given the fact that a variance was being <br />requested for the property to the north of the existing <br />building. <br />Mr. Harold Becker stated that there were grade changes <br />between the two properties and that there was a building <br />to the east which would not make it feasible to close the <br />driveway on Old Highway 8 at this time. <br />Mr. Wellington Tolly, Attorney for Mr. Becker, stated that <br />the closing of the driveway could have a substantial effect <br />on the potential resale value of the building and that the <br />driveway was essential to the operation of the existing <br />property. Mr. Tolly further stated that the request for the <br />e variance was only related to the north parcel and was not <br />related to the existing properties that Mr. Becker owns. <br />Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Janecek to close public hearing. <br />4 ayes - 0 nayes - motion carried