10-13-2004 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 23, 2001 Scalze asked if the proposed building meets the requirements of the I -P District. The Planner replied that it appears to. However, the Building, Official will verify this as part of his review of building, plans. Lawrence Groholski indicated that he would comply with the Planner's recommendation relative to screening. He also noted that most of his trucks would be parked inside the building. Scalze pointed out that the green space indicated on the site plan would have to remain as such and that equipment and materials could not be stored on the green space. The City Planner explained to Mr. Groholski the further development of the site would require either a property division or a PUD approval. The City Administrator reported that in exchange for the 1033 letter, Mr. Groholski has agreed to place this building on the site in such a way that would maximize future development of the site. However, before pursuing additional development, Mr. Groholski wants to make sure this initial development plan works. The City Administrator asked Mr. Groholski if the site plan and storage area as proposed will work for his business, noting that vehicles and equipment cannot be stored in the green area. The Planner suggested that the City expand the storage area to the maximum allowed by code, that is 3,750 square feet. 11/Ir. Groholski indicated that he thought that would work for his business. The City Administrator reported that the last time this development proposal was before the Council, it was tabled pending a review to see if TIF assistance would work for this project. The Administrator replied that it does not. LaValle asked Mr. Groholski if the proposal which includes a 5,000 square foot building anti 3,750 square feet of outdoor storage area will work for his business. Nfr. Groholski replied that it should work just fine. The City Administrator pointed out to Mr. Groholski that it is key that this proposal meets the needs of his business since he will be held to the limitations indicated on the site plan. There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on this matter. Upon motion by LaValle, seconded by Anderson, the public hearing was closed. 6 - 1 9 -