PCMin_86May5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY 5, 1986 PAGE 2 should be extended for a one year period. Black did not want the capacity David H. Olson, 2061 West Larpenteur, requested variances from setback requirements and parking on a structure he plans to build on the Larpenteur site. The purpose of his company is to prepare and enrich as well as train counselors and clergy to work with couples on marriage enrichment and counseling. At this site the main function will be to take the inventories prepared by married couples and run them through computers. In the evenings they plan to have opportunities for couples to take the inventory and have the computer analyze the information right away, which could be done individually or in groups. This would be done late afternoon, early evening or on Saturdays. Mr. Olson described the style of building, the square footage and suggested location on the lot. He then explained why the variances were required. He is interested in purchasing a strip of land 145 feet long and 20 feet wide from the City (who seems receptive) for additional parking. Forty-seven parking stalls have been located on the site. The present site for this business is County Road B/Spelling area. of the parking stretched too far. Finegan felt the parking should be reassessed based upon probable use of the property by existing and new tenants and allow flexability for the future. Grittner stated that the first parking scheme did not include the use of the basement area. Finegan moved, seconded by Northrup, to recommend a one year extension of the temporary conditional use permit to the City Council and that the Planning Commission initiate action to make a study of the parking requirements over the one year. Motion carried unanimously. John Uban, City Planner, reviewed the different ways the study could be undertaken. • Mr. Olson plans on renting the first floor for the first three years with hopes of expanding his business after that time. Several tenants may be interested in rental although no firm plans have been negotiated. John Uban, City Planner, reviewed his April 30th report reviewing what changes he suggested that would enhance the placement of the structure on the lot. He suggested the possible use of cross parking easements to add more parking which would allow a change in building location. Councilmember Hard advised that there had been no request for industrial revenue bond financing or tax increment bond financing--the development would essentially go right on the tax rolls and may help retire the bonds. He also advised that in discussions with the Fire Chief there could be a potential expansion of the City Hall building of an additional bay for a fire truck, which may be needed due to the development taking place within the City. Therefore, it would be positive for the city to enter into negotiations when it comes to the purchase of the 20 foot strip of property as it would provide for additional parking. Northrup questioned who pays for the work done by the City Planner on a private project. Hard stated that in a tax increment financing project, ten percent of the administrative costs are payable by the developer but in this case it won't work. He would like to see the project move forward and sees part of the costs as the costs of doing business and these costs could be debated at another time. Northrup questioned if it would be inappropriate for the City to get some "up front" money and Hard answered that it may not be inappropriate as a cap could be put on certain costs and these costs could be discussed in the negotiation process. Black then asked whether the Planning Commission should recommend or authorize some expenditures for services to which Grittner . and Hard advised that they could not be done. Hard stated that Council will have to decide who pays the costs and if they should be shared.