Minutes - Council - 04/25/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

the utilities requires demolition of the building and reconstruction of a new one outside the utility easement. Even though the building is only 960 square feet in size, the City Code requires site plan review of all buildings constructed in a commercial district. The building is proposed to be 960 square feet in size; the principal building is 9,500 square feet in size. The total square footage of the principal building and the accessory building does not exceed the 35% lot coverage restriction. The proposed size of the accessory building does not exceed the 30% of principal building size restriction. The building is proposed to be finished with maintenance free siding and asphalt shingles. Deviation from a natural or prefabricated masonry material requires Council approval The existing accessory building was not served by a paved access and the new building is not proposed to have any pavement installed around it either. Normally, the City would require a paved and curbed access to the accessory building. However, Mr. Clauson of City Wide Garage Door has engaged a consultant to prepare a site plan for an expansion of the principal building. It is anticipated that this expansion will be on the June Planning Commission agenda. Staff is recommending that the addition of pavement and curbing to the site be addressed as part of the larger expansion to occur this summer. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on April 18, and because the proposed building location is on the north side of the principal building, adjacent to the railroad tracks, they did recommend approval of the deviation from the masonry building to one with maintenance free siding. They also commented that if the new concrete building pad is less than 35 feet away from the rear property line, they are inclined to grant a variance to the rear yard setback rather than require demolition of the new pad. Staff was also directed to include a term in the Development Permit that would obligate Mr. Clauson to install a paved and curbed access to the building even if he doesn't do a large expansion of the principal building this summer. The Planning Commission and City Staff recommend site plan approval contingent upon compliance with the City Staff renew letter dated April 13, 2000 and the April 18, 2000 discussion of the Planning Commission. Ivan Clauson, applicant, stated he had nothing to add to the staffreport. Councilmember Zimmerman asked if there is room for a rear service road. Community Development Director Frolik stated the building will just meet the 35 foot rear setback so there may not be enough room to locate a frontage road to the rear of the building. Mayor Gamec asked if the frontage road in that area was to be in front of the buildings. City Engineer Jankowski stated no definite decision has been made on the exact location of a frontage road. Councilmember Zimmerman noted the bicycle business is located too close to Highway #10 to locate a frontage road in front of that building. Community Development Director Frolik stated a discussion was also held about the option of a meandering frontage road. City Council/April 25, 2000 Page 8 of 29