Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />November 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business, Continued <br /> <br />Brandt asked if the provision in the resolution that the <br />processor and structure be removed by January 1, 1989, is too <br />restrictive. <br /> <br />Thingvold responded that if everything proceeds according to <br />plan, the task should be completed by that date. <br /> <br />Benke stated that the applicant could come back and request an <br />extension. <br /> <br />Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Brandt to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING SP-135. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Mattila briefly reviewed the staff report concerning a resolution <br />approving a non-conforming use permit and approval of landscaping <br />plans. Stated the Planning Commission recommends approval. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Schmidt to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING NC-77, AND TO APPROVE LP-202, SUBJECT <br />TO COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING PLANS AS SUBMITTED AND SIGNED BY THE <br />APPLICANT AND THE CITY PLANNER. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried. <br /> <br />Mattila reviewed the staff report concerning a request to con- <br />struct an office/warehouse building closer than 60 feet to a <br />residential boundary line. Stated that the Planning Commission <br />has recommended approval of the variance and landscape plan, <br />subject to conditions outlined in the report. <br /> <br />Motion by Gunderman, seconded by Schmidt to WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING VN-251, AND TO APPROVE LP-204 <br />SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. <br /> <br />In response to the Mayor's call for further response, the appli- <br />cant, John Murlowski, stated he had two minor problems with the <br />recommendation. Stated that his concerns were in regard to the <br />six foot cyclone fence required by the recommendation along the <br />south property line, and with the location of the curb cut. <br /> <br />Murlowski stated that the proposed location of the cyclone fence <br />is too heavily wooded to accommodate such a fence; and requested <br />the fence requirement be deleted. <br /> <br />Murlowski further stated there are two existing curb cuts on the <br />property, one approximately in the center of the property and <br />the other on the south side; and that when the plan was initially <br />drawn up, the south curb cut was utilized. <br /> <br />Page Eight <br /> <br />NC-77 and LP-202 <br />Micom Corp. <br />Report 86-297 <br />Resolution 86-133 <br /> <br />VN-251 and LP-204 <br />First General <br />Services <br />Report 86-298 <br />ResoluttQn 86-133A <br />