|
, .
<br />. �. : }��� f�
<br />'t2. . . . �4 �
<br />i' e� N � � . ` �Sf
<br />-
<br />�� � + .; � � �� -
<br />Q?.�.h15t . :; .:. . .,� . , ���5:
<br />��
<br />,* .: , .
<br />tiS�n.;7 � �'. r ,'F;
<br />��ti" s . , ��� �'� . � �
<br />� , ... . . �'.
<br />�. t-t:�.�� �.._� �.� .. �� �.. . :: . . ',. � �,
<br />� u • �. .... r . - . , .. . . . ; . .. . . : -�„ . .
<br />t.
<br />�'Y.'' - . ., . . ,' .' . : .:.-: ... .. , .� . .. `
<br />�'t
<br />� ` k . . � � . . �. : .. :.. � �� - �;'..
<br />� `, . . . . . .. ���'� :'...' ' . . .. .' . 5 �.
<br />t + . . '. .'. .. � ; ' . ' . .' . ; ' . �..', -. : ,
<br />5. ,That there be no access to the site�to.Marion Street. ',,'r�
<br />. i ii!
<br />�� � . . . . . ' . . . � � . � . � ��' �� .;��:-. - .:'. '::. ., �� i��� . �.:- . , ��t�i
<br />6. � That a sprinkler system be grovided for the buildings�. '`��
<br />: , ; `�f�
<br />`°"�' � The design of the system should be . reviewed ��nd i:,;�
<br />� �<<<
<br />. i . 5�... , S 4 ���.
<br />,� . approved by the Fire Marshal. 1{ _
<br />�.�
<br />}r r ' . , � ��iri u
<br />The City � Council approved the special use 'permit for �� the '�j �rF� ,�;
<br />�� amended PUD on July 25, 1988 with -the six conditions ?�:
<br />f :?
<br />recommended by the Planning Commissione The Council did., �w���
<br />,���` however, expand condition #3 to read 'that the drainage ::�
<br />� ermit, fill permit, and access permit be approved by MNDOT. F,}k.�
<br />P �;�: t
<br />In reviewing the Planning Commission minutes, the�e was <<5"5;
<br />��,
<br />considerable discussion about traffic and existing problems ``,rJT,��
<br />� on Rice Street. Based on neighborhood concern, the access ;: ��,,;°.
<br />�� � treet was rohibited. : The Council ;{�'�-
<br />z; to the site from Marion S p nn r:
<br />minutes show the action, so it is difficult to recreate the fi�'��
<br />Y�' :. � � 1 ,��A
<br />1���� discussions that may have occurred, but by the fact that the ';k>j
<br />' � t �"�"«r
<br />'f':� � Council added that a access permit be approved by M1�dDOT t,,:.:
<br />^ptiizh�
<br />- indicates that there was probably some discussion.� ��,,
<br />h
<br />. . . . . . . . ' .. � . � } ( F'4�it�'fl
<br />rt F �
<br />5. In December of 1988, the City Council approved an access �S�Y�
<br />modification to the site to allaw an additional access to �i4f�
<br />�e Minnesota Street. This was based on the Stat�'s position �r:,�
<br />"�+ ° . that they would not approve the drainage anc� f il l permit ''���'
<br />� `a�;
<br />without an additional access being provided. This was �'';`�
<br />� necessary �or Brutger to meet condition #3 of �l�e previous ��a
<br />FS.\CyS,
<br />approval that stated that the drainage permit, fill permit, ��iS,,
<br />and aceess permit be approved by MNDOT. `��,�
<br />,r `�.
<br />, . . . .. ' . . � i . :�3
<br />� In regards to the other questions that have been brought` up,: I
<br />have found:
<br />�� 1. The votes on the Brutger approva�. and the, access
<br />� amendment were unanimous by the Council.
<br />2.
<br />I did not f ind any direct specific i.nforma�ion
<br />�` regarding any statements to the effect that if the Rice � _
<br />M1 .r',.
<br />�: Street access problem is not sol�ed that the project.�.
<br />� could no�t go forward. The condition attached clearly �` '
<br />��`�;-� states that the State would have to sign off on the : �
<br />sa�.; ; _� b rovidin
<br />drainage, grading, and access. Brutger, y p g,.
<br />�Rw; :: . ,
<br />,,� ;. the adciitional access to Minnesota Street, apparently ,.'
<br />-��-� � was to the point where the State would sign off.
<br />�.:xf.. ,
<br />,� '
<br />�n� ,
<br />''��. 3. The proposal before the Council is for a.n amended PUD .
<br />�� �= and special use permit. This ac�tion is necessary . �;��, ;:
<br />�kt� because the previaus approval expired �on August 13, :. ,;
<br />'�1�f � �.gg5, In a sense, becaus� the c�riginal approval `:�� �
<br />"��J��" expired, all bets are off and the Council can relook at `
<br />�sg��` However, because it is the same ;�
<br />� � the proposal. ��
<br />:�� � proposal, in my opi.nion, it would be difficult to deny
<br />r�g<; approval at this point, unless there is new informa�ion
<br />� which was not previously available and which would
<br />�, � or additional conditions. The
<br />�ti�;;- support the denial
<br />,�
<br />. �.
<br />h� j
<br />��
<br />�
<br />'���R . . . . ' � . �� . .
<br />
|