pf_02070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

'--<'~ .~ ': -. , - 5. That there be no ,",ccess to the site to "farion St..-eet. 6. That a sprinkler system be provided for the buildings. The dw::iqn of the ~~TsTem should be revie-..red and approved by the Fire M~cs"1al.. The City Council aY}lcoved th-a special use permit fcr toe amended roD on July 25, 1988 witl1 the six cond1tioas recommended by the ?lam.ing Commi.mion~ The ~i.l j,id, however, expand condition 1L-tQ read that the drainatJ'l'i' permit, fill permit, anaaccess p~~ be 82EJ:.OVed by MNnoT. In reviewtfig-1:be-- P:ann~NT--o..111'iiIission-tim.ites, there was considerable discussion about traffic and 6xisting problems on Rice street. Baaed on neighborhood concern, the accese to the site froJB Marion stre&.t was prohib:ted.. Tbg council minutes show the act:ien-;--so--U:-tt- difficult: to recreate the discussions thai:. may have occurred, but by the fact that tbe Counci~_ added that a access permit be approved by HND01' indicates that there was probaboly some discussion.. f: -. In ;)ecAJ&bgr of 1938, the City Counr:il apJlroved an access modification Tn the si1:Q to cd..lOW an adlU.tionaf'access to KiDR9S.x& ..s.treet:-~bls was b!tsM on 'C1e state's position that they would not approve the drain8qG and fill permit without 8)1 additional act"QSS being provided.. Tills was naCQss&T)" for Brut'qer to . 1St condition '3 of the p1."9V1ous approval that stated that the drainage permit, fill permit, and access permit be approved by hdDOT.. In reqards to the other questions that have been brou.ght up, I have found: , " 1. The votes on the BrutcJer approval and tn& aCC&SS amendment were unanilRous by the Council. 2. I did not find any direct specific information regar:Ung any statements to the e:t:f9ct that if the Rice Street access rroble.na is not solved that the project could not go fa. '"1olard. The condit.ion attached clearly states that the state would have to siqn off on 1:he drainage, grading, and access. Brutgec, by providing the additional accs&s to Minnesota Street, apparently was to the point where the State would sign off. 3. The proposal before the .':uJncil is for an amended PUt) and special use parmi t. Thiti, action is neceasary be~aase th_ previous approval expired on August 13, 1ge5. In a sense, beC3use the o,,:,iqinal approvd.l expired, all be~s are cff and the Council can relook at the proposal. However. because it is the same proposal, in ~y opinion, it would be difficult to den~ approval at this point, unless there is new info~aticn which vas not previously available and wbic1t would support the Genial or additional conditions. The