Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 08/14/06 <br />Minutes - Page 17 <br /> <br />findings of Section 5 of the project report dated August 14, <br />2006, and as conditioned in the resolution, for construction of a <br />new Walser dealership structure limited to a structure footprint <br />of up to 34,800 square feet, second story office/storage of up to <br />4,800 square feet, and a parts storage area of up to 3,000 square <br />feet and constructed to include a two-story office/showroom, a <br />service write up area, and a parts/service (including car wash) as <br />identified on plans submitted June 2, 2006 and revised <br />site/footprint/floor plans dated July 25, 2006. <br /> <br />Discussion included clarification of the setback requirements and <br />encroachment on the adjacent parcel; code requirements for a ten <br />foot setback, irrespective of MnDOT' s lease agreement with the <br />dealership; and storm water pond setback requirements. <br /> <br />David Phillips, 227 Colfax Avenue, Mpls., Phillips Architects <br />& Contractors, Ltd. <br />Mr. Phillips spoke to the issue of the high water mark and <br />surveys of the property, and the applicant's willingness to clarify <br />that issue. <br /> <br />Mr. Phillips spoke to the requirement for a variance of 10' from <br />the south property line, and questioned how he would justify a <br />hardship for variance application, based on the proposed <br />conditions. Mr. Phillips expressed further concern regarding the <br />adjacent Chrysler dealership and Planning Commission <br />recommendation. Mr. Phillips noted timing concerns with being <br />required to return for a variance application, and the waning <br />construction season. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued related to City Code and specific setback <br />requirements; possible alternatives of the owner; and <br />clarification that the Variance Board would hear the request, and <br />their decision would be final if there was no appeal filed. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke advised that staff would make every attempt to meet <br />the construction requirements of the applicant with the variance <br />request process and Public Hearing. Mr. Paschke clarified for <br />the applicant that Roseville Chrysler had applied for a <br />Conditional Use Permit for redevelopment, and their use was a <br />pre-existing condition, with only an addition to an existing <br />