My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1986-03-25
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1986
>
1986-03-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 5:34:21 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 11:27:37 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />March 25, 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business, continued <br /> <br />Brandt asked if the city could require the parking lot to be <br />moved; Benke stated there would not be much to negotiate if <br />there was no option for relocating the parking lot. <br /> <br />Martinson felt there was discrepancy in the interpretation of <br />the ordinance regarding parking within 25 feet of the rear lot <br />line, or within 50 feet; Benke stated the Planning Commission is <br />in the process of reviewing the zoning and parking ordinances. <br /> <br />Briggs surmised that the parking situations with the other <br />buildings that Martinson showed earlier were adjacent or among <br />other buildings but, even if they weren't, Briggs did not feel <br />there was a single ordinance in the metropolitan area that would <br />allow a greater number of square feet. Briggs feels this city's <br />ordinances are similar to other metropolitan areas. <br /> <br />With regard to all of the possible changes, Briggs stated <br />Harstad Companies has talked to their attorneys and they do find <br />our ordinance regarding the atrium is consistent with what has <br />been done in the past. <br /> <br />With regard to structures, Briggs doesn't feel parking lots are <br />considered to be structures under the building code and believes <br />that is consistent with other city's ordinances. <br /> <br />Reverend Satre stated approval of this variance will definitely <br />negatively impact the neighbors' property; the city's ordinances <br />do not do justice to this particular case; there is no other <br />precedent in the city of a building such as this being built next <br />to residences which must carefully be taken into consideration; <br />believes they should build a two-story building and do it with <br />integrity and be satisfied with the profits that can come with <br />the B1 property; and feels the variance is inappropriate to the <br />site in question. <br /> <br />Eva Jeppson stated that when Mr. Harstad acquired the property <br />in 1974 it was zoned R1, and when it was rezoned in 1981 the only <br />person the public records show as showing up at the public <br />hearings was Mr. Harstad and, at that time, he agreed to the B1 <br />zoning; if he had a hardship, he should have expressed it at that <br />time. <br /> <br />Brandt indicated she could not vote for the resolution granting <br />a variance nor could she justify voting against a variance so <br />would abstain from voting. <br /> <br />Benke feels councilmembers may agree to disagree on whether or <br />not there is a hardship, but it did pretty much agree not to <br />make an issue of hardship when it thought there was agreement; <br /> <br />Page Fifteen <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.