Laserfiche WebLink
two issues to be discussed are the owner presence and having a duplex in a single-family zoning <br />area. Councihnember Zimmerman inquired what City the rental license ordinance was modeled <br />under. Community Development Director Frolik replied a lot of the ordinance was modeled <br />under Coon Rapid's ordinance. She indicated there is no means for someone to apply for a <br />special pcmfit to put a duplex in a single-family district at this time. Councilmember Elvig <br />statcd he appreciates that there is nothing to currently allow that, but he is concerned if this <br />request is granted that they would give someone a back door ability to apply because of a <br />precedence they may be setting. Ms. McNagal stated she and her husband own another property <br />that is 2/10 of a mile away, which is a duplex with a conditional use. Associate Planner Geisler <br />noted the property referred to does not contain the provision to require owner occupancy. Ms. <br />McNagal stated their contract with the current owners will run out tomorrow, and they will not <br />be here in two weeks. The owners will have to look for an owner who wants to live on the <br />property, and there are a lot of for sale signs around them, She and her husband paid the $600 to <br />come mid make this petition because they love this property and hope to some day live there. <br />Mayor Gamec indicated there is a concern on the Council's part regarding this issue, as it reflects <br />on a lot of other issues. This is a unique case but they need to make sure they have the right <br />protections in place, <br /> <br />Case #4: Request for Site Plan Review for Automated EDM; Case of Automated EDM <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon explained Automated EDM curremly <br />operates their office, warehouse, and light manufacturing facility on the property located at 6231 <br />McKinley Street. Their existing facility is 12,576 square feet in size and they are proposing to <br />construct an 11,975 square foot warehouse/light manufacturing addition. The existing facility is <br />located it~ the E-1 Employment District and is considered a permitted use in this district. The <br />subject property is approximately 1.81 acres in size. Lot coverage for the proposed project is <br />approximately 31 percent (restricted to 45 percent under City Code). The addition meets the <br />required fi'ont, rear, side yard setbacks, and all parking stall requirements. The exterior materials <br />are proposing to consist of rock face and smooth face concrete masonry block, which complies <br />with City Code standards. The landscape plan is acceptable. <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon explained the subject property and <br />adjacent property cun'ently drain to a common pond, which occupies area on both properties. <br />The grading plan proposes installing an outlet fi.om this common pond into the 30-inch storm <br />sewer located on the north side of McKinley Street. There will be a pending area that is not <br />covered by a drainage and utility easement. As a condition of approval a drainage and utility <br />casement should be required from the adjacent property over that portion of their property, which <br />would bt inundated by a design storm event. City Engineer Jankowski is present to provide the <br />Council with more details regarding the drainage if they would like. He advised staff <br />rccommcnds the Council approve the proposed site plan contingent upon compliance with City <br />StaIT Rcview Letter dated September 10, 2004, revised October 8, 2004, revising the grading and <br />drainage plan to be in compliance with City standards, and contingent on the drainage and utility <br />easement being worked out by the property owners concerning the pond on the adjacent property <br />prior to issuance ora Certificate of Occupancy. <br /> <br />City Council/October 12, 2004 <br /> Page 15 of 30 <br /> <br /> <br />