Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5) The City Council, at its June 25, 1996 meeting, continued the hearing to July 22, 1996 <br />but ~id not accept the setback variance. The Council requested that the Planning <br />Commission review this matter at the July 10, 1996 meeting and provide the City Council <br />with a'recommendation concerning approval of a PUD or other alternative approaches on <br />the site. <br /> <br />6) Ryan Companies has developed an alternate site plan which will result in the construction <br />of a 100,000 square foot building on the site which does not require any variances. The <br />proposal will.meet all parking requirements including the number of parking stalls <br />provided and parking setbacks. The developer will also construct temporary stonn water <br />detention ponds on their property in the 40 foot parking lot setback area adjacent to lona <br />Lane. . These ponds may become pennanent ponds if the City does not work out a <br />regional ponding soluticm. The developer has also agreed to construct a street to City <br />Engineering standards within the existing lona Street right-of-way which will allow <br />parking for passenger vehicles (not trailers). This parking will be public and not for sole <br />use of the developer. <br /> <br />.7) The Planning Commission, at its July 10, 1996 meeting recommended that: <br /> <br />a) the City Council determine that no PUD is necessary because the amended <br />plan submitted by the de,' eloper does not require any variances. <br /> <br />_ b) the Council direct staff to study the existing parking setback standards in <br />industrial zoning districts and develop an ordinance amendment for future <br />Pl~nningCommission and City Council review. <br /> <br />c) a PUD Master Plan for the entire Twin Lakes area be prepared in the future <br />after the parkway and regional ponding issues have been resolved. <br /> <br />~taff Recommendations: <br /> <br />I) Staff recommends that the City Council detennine that a PUD is not necessary in this <br />case based on the fact that Ryan Companies has revised their site plan and no longer need <br />variances. '1. I <br />. .\ . <br /> <br />a) of parking setback standards in industrial zoning districts and <br />prepare ordinance amendment for Planning Commission and City Council <br />consideration in August. Any reduction in setbacks could be conditioned on the <br />provision of additional benning, screening, and landscaping. <br /> <br /> <br />s that the City ~ouncil direct staff to <br /> <br />2) <br /> <br />Staff also rec <br /> <br />b) consider the use of a master PUD plan for all of Twin Lakes after the BRW <br />transportation and ponding studies are complete. <br />2 <br />