CC 03-14-1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting March 14, 1983 Page Two . preliminary approval of the plans; recognizes we have a different Council at this point, but the plan proposed is as previously approved. Noted that a similar plan, on Hwy. 12 toward Hudson, has resulted in cutting the accident experience in half. McAllister moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council adopt Resolu- tion No. 83-17, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR INTER- SECTION REVISIONS ON T.H. 51 AT JUNCTION OF HAMLINE AND SNELLING AVENUES. Motion carried (McAllister, Mulcahy, Woodburn voting in favor of the motion; Christiansen voting in opposition). (3-1). New BriRhton Interceptor Christoffersen reported that the Metro Council approved the New Brighton Interceptor on March 10th. . Bikeway Funds Council requested Christoffersen to apply for bikeway funds for the Lexington Avenue bikeways; also to advise Ramsey County that Arden Hills intends to apply for M.S.A. monies on Lexington. REPORT OF VILLAGE PLANNER ORLYN MILLER Case No. 83-4, Stewart Lumber - Site Plan Review and Sideyard Variance Council waa referred to Planning memo (2-24-83) and to Board of Appeals (2-26-83) and Planning Commission (3-2-83) recommendations. In review of the site plan and proposed location of a 36' x 96' addition to the existing office/storage building at the south edge of the site, Miller explained that by his interpretation, the lum- ber yard is a non-conforming use in tqe B-2 District; noted that the lumber yard apparently existed before incorporation of the City and, despite its nonconformity, the City has allowed it to eXPand at least twice in recent years. Miller explained that the lumber yard operates as a retail outlet; noted that this is apparently the interpretation in the past; sug- gested that the parcel should probably be re-zoned to 1-2, or the ordinance re-worded to accommodate the lumber yard as a conform- ing use. Some concern was expressed relative to amending the ordinance; would require incorporation at that time of certain State laws not now in effect ( e.g. use of park dedication for control of surface water, which State law doea not permit). (It was suggested that ambiguities noted in the current Zoning Ordinance be listed, for consideration when Council amends the Zoning Ordinance at some future date.) Miller reported that the Planning Commission considered the lumber yard a "permitted use" and therefore allowed to expand noted that their recommendation is to allow expansion by extending the existing 7' - 8' setback variance, with the contingency that the proposed white exterior siding be extended to include the exterior . of the existing building, and that a program of screening along Highway 10 be started within three months. Glen Medbery explained that he proposes an 8' projection for the proposed building to accommodate his storage needs and maneuver- ability of a forklift within the building. Noted that moving the building to the north 8', narrows the space between the proposed and existing buildings, making access to it impractical. Medbery said he would probably have to change the building location to another place on the lot, possibly vest of the second building (proposed location is preferable). Medbery said if the building width is reduced, it makes it impossible to move materials within the building; explained that aligning the building with the south line of the existing building is not practical. After discussion, Mulcahy moved, seconded by Christiansen, that Council approve a 17' setback variance from the south property line (3' setback) for the proposed 36' x 96' building addition. Motion failed (2-2) -2-