CC 08-09-1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes of Regular Council Meeting August 9, 1982 Page Four > and roadways, seem to meet the Intent of the ordinance to provide a landscaped area between the parking and the street; proposed site plan, therefore, places the building with a wider than required setback from the east property line (28' - 20' required) to give more separation between this structure and future development to the east. (Johnson left the meeting) Janis Blumental, Architect, said their engineering firm, BRW, has been working with the Highway Department relative to drainage adjustment; wll I submit plans for their approval; are adjusting grading to save as many trees as possible; will put In a retaining wal I, If necessary, to maintain elevations; has no problem with adding additional trees as suggested by the City Planner. Blumental said he . would prefer to screen the dock area with landscaping rather than with a block wall. Engineer Christoffersen said he has not reviewed the plan In detail; noted the location of a meter station near the southwest corner of the property, would be concerned about a driveway crossing there; asked If the developer has checked availability of sewer and water to the site; does not recal I whether this site has sewer at present. Monica Tuggle (resident) noted that there are no ponds at this site now; said there was standing water previously In that area. Concern was expressed relative to the Intensive lot coverage and the possible need for more parking. Blumental said normal warehouse would be 10%-15% office, 85%-90% warehouse; feels proposed parking Is more than adequate. In discussion, It was suggested that the building be moved to the east and the drainage ditch changed to a pipe. Christoffersen said he thought the ditch would be preferable because pipe Is dIfficult to maintain; also provides no absorbtlon. Another concern was granting variances "because It doesn't bother anybody"; suggested the basis for granting the variances could be the existence of the drainage ditch on the property, which must remain, Blumental said the circumstances of this property are unusual because of the wide separation between It and the two roadways; feels the ordinance was Intended for the normal conditions. After discussion, McAllister moved, seconded by Hicks, that Council approve the building permIt and variances requested, contlQgent upon the Items listed on Page 3 of Planning memo (7-28-82), a through d, and subject to resolution of park dedication. Motion did not carry (Hicks, Mulcahy voting In favor of the motion; McAllister, Woodburn voting In opposition). (2-2). It was suggested that the applicant find a solution to development of the properfy, without variances, probably a sma I ler building, and provision for some screening of the parking area from Highway 51. Case No. 82-13, Lot Spilt at 1893 Beckman Avenue Council was referred to Planning memo (7-14-82) relative to options available for splitting and developing the 150' x 150' lot. Transparencies were shown of the three options: I. Two 75' lots with 50' setback from New Brighton Road, provides a 20' x 60' building envelope, which Is not considered adequate. 2. Two 75' lots with 40' setback from New Brighton Road, provides a 30' x 60' building envelope; would provide a flexible build- Ing envelope, but violates the "prevailing setback" provision of the ordinance. . 3. Shift lot line to provide 5' minimum setback from the existing house, creating two lots (79' corner and 71' easterly lot). If 50' setbacK, building envelope of 60' x 24' Is provided, but relationship to the existing and future houses Is not very des I rab I e. After discussion, Hicks moved, seconded by Mulcahy, that Council deny the lot spl It. Motion carried unanimously (4-0). -4-