pm_940713 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5 Chairman Wietecki asked for a clarification of code deficiencies and the requested actions. Mr. Falk summarized the code deficiencies and the actions requested. Member Sandstrom questioned the impact of the shoreline ordinance on the proposed project. Staff responded that there would be no impact. Member Rengel asked if the building could be shifted or an angled parking solution instituted to alleviate the parking setback problem. Michael Falk responded that the building was right at setback lines and that angled parking would impact the number of parking stalls present on the site. Member Thomas questioned if there was curb and gutter being proposed and outlined conditions from the previous special use permit approval for the property which may still apply. Mr. Falk responded that curb and gutter is shown on the approved plan. Staff also responded that most of the previous conditions would not apply to the present proposal, but could be incorporated into this approval. Member Harms questioned ifPUD had been required for a similar development. Staff indicated that they could not recall a similar proposal being done as a PUD. Member Rengel asked for clarification on the number of parking stalls required, and on the design details of the building. Robert Mickalack, project Architect, higWighted the proposal and pointed out that Mr. Alkali operated three similar facilities in the metro area. Mr. Michalack indicated that the taxes would be cleared up on the sale, that angled parking was reviewed but did not work for the proposed operations. Mr. Mickalack also added that the 37 parking stalls required by city code is in excess of what is necessary for the business. Mr. Mickalack pointed out that the site is all asphalt now and that there is an adjacent garage for the apartment complex which is right up to the property line. Mr. Mickalack summarized exterior materials, landscaping, building height, and other details. Chairman Wietecki asked if the size of the building could be reduced. Mr. Mickalack responded that the current design meets the minimum business needs. Member Rengel questioned what signage would occur on the site. Mr. Alkali responded that he is proposing a pylon sign with the business name and reader board and wall signage as allowed by the ordinance. Mr. Alkali pointed out that he is looking into the possibility of canopy signs over the window area. Member Sandstrom questioned who the other tenant would be, and the amount of space they would occupy. Mr. Alkali responded that it would be a Precision Tune type use and not a body shop and that they would occupy 3800 square feet of the building.