04-27-88 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES City Council Apr~il 27, 1988 Gar•dner Br~os. Fi nal Plat (Cont.) only 17 feet of r~ight-of-way is necessar~y. Council discussed this and felt that r•ather• than dividing the amount of right-of-way between the pr~oper•ty owner~s on either side of the street, the Ci ty woul d only r•equi r•e 17 feet of r•i ght-of-way fr•om Gar•dner~ Br~os. since the City is not allowing Gar•dner~ Br•os. access to DeSoto Str~eet. Collova asked for• an explanation of the setback pr~oblem that occur~r•ed with the Slumber•land deve1opment. The City Planner~ explained that in or•der• to meet State fir~e Codes, Slumber•land had to pr•ovide a 60 foot setback to their• building. This was accomplished by pur•chasing an easement fr•om the Gar~dner~ Dr•os. The Planner~ r~eplied that the 15 foot sideyard setback would be adequate with pr•oper• building-type. Collova felt that this should be noted so that the same pr•oblem does not ar~ise with the Gar•dner~ Br•os. development. Scalze noted that the City has not r•eceiv~ pr•oper~ty Gar•dner• Bros. sold to Lar•r•y Lee, pr•oper•ty been submitted. Either• of these the City can determine the amount of par•k pr~oper~ty and the Gar•dner~ Br~os. pr•oper•ty. plat should be contingent upon payment of ~d a purchase agr•eement for~ the nor• has an appr~ai sal for the two items is necessar•y so that charge for both Larry Lee's Scalze noted that the final appr•opr~i ate par•k char~ges. Heller• r•epor~ted that he has pur~sued this with Gar•dner• Br~os., but ther~e ar•e some minor~ hold-ups in submitting this infor~mation to the City. Scalze noted that the Park Commission has r~ecommended a cash par~k char•ge, and that no development will be allowed to occur• until these par•k char~ges have been pai d. It was pointed out that the Cit,y has the capability under• Tax Increment Financing to include additional par•k funding. Scalze pointed out that Gar•dner• Br~os. would only be allowed one free- standing sign and asked what will happen if the tenants of the mini- warehouses r~equest signage. Scalze pointed out that this occur•r~ed in the Woodlyn Avenue area. Scalze did not feel the pr•oblem should be left up to code enfor•cement, but should be addr•essed at this time. Blesener• pointed out that Gar•dner~ Bros. would have thr•ee lots and asked i f thr•ee fr~ee-standi ng si gns woul d be per•mi tted. The Planner~ replied that the Code could be inter•pr•eted in that manner~, i f ther•e ar•e no other• contr•ol s i n pl ace. The P1 anner~ al so poi nted out that two fr~ee-standing signs could be r•equested by conditional use per~mit for• each lot. However•, the subject of signage could be addr~essed in the PUD Agreement for~ Gar•dner• Br•os. In or~der• to amend the PUD Agr•eement to change signage plan, a public hear•ing would have to be held by the Council. Page -15-