Agenda - Council - 02/26/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE 2: Summary of drainage: Option 1 and 2 would require a public hearing of property o~mers and assessment of the project to the benefitted property owners. Option 3 would solve Grosslein property but would not solve any of the adjacent properties drainage problems. One con- cern with this option 3 is that in the future, if the City undertakes a special assessment improvement to solve the areas overall drainage problems, we may not be able to assess this particular Grossleins property since it will not be benefitted as it handles its own runoff. 4) The issue of on street parking of trucks and backing of trucks has been brought to the Staff and Council's attention. Chapter 90.01 of the City Code gives the City the authority to restrict on street parking as well as street blocking. Please also refer to Police Chief's memo on this .subject enclosure (D4-d). 5) The question of the present volume of traffic as well as the increase in traffic which will occur within the proposed development is also at issue. The residents are primarily concerned with the trucks and semi-truck traffic as it affects access to their properties, occassionally causes street block- age and the residents say in general is a safety hazard as well as inconvenience. Staff discussed the possibility of obtaining an additional outlet to Tungsten Street, in order to provide two means of access to Rivlyn Street. The residents were opposed to this as a solution as they feel a dead end street is advantageous in preventing burglaries, etc., and helping strangers out. There is no question that the additional build- ing will add to the traff on Tungsten. 6) The condition of Tungsten Street has been discussed. It appears to staff that Tungsten will need to be upgraded to a 9-ton street. Cost for such an improvement under present City Ordinance, would be paid by abutting property owners. 7) The residents contend that the type of use as that proposed falls under the category of warehousing and/or truck terminal which are both permitted uses under the industrial zone and therefore it is not a proper use for the B-1 district. Staff is of the opinion that is a wholesale business use and such is permitted in the B-1 zone. The Board will need to make a finding on this issue. Finally, staff feels the Council should be aware that under exist- ing ordinances and because the E.Q.B. has no objection to the proposal if the applicant were to desire to construct a building which did not need variances, the City would most likely be unable to deny a building permit in spite of all the above issues. REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR STREET FRONTAGE - HIGHWAY #47 AND COUNTY ROAD #7 Background: This is a metes and bounds subdivision in the'rural service area which doesn't meet the zoning requirement of 660