Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />APRIL 26, 2006 <br />to provide for 116 spaces. The City Planner indicated that the applicant <br />indicated that there will be no less than 105 parking spaces provided. He <br />also reported that the City's code allows for a proof of parking process <br />which requires thaC the applicant show he has the ability to meet parking <br />requirements at the time the parking is needed. <br />Blesener suggested that perhaps Che parking at the fronC of the building <br />was not necessary. The Planner indicated that KCM's plan is to have <br />customer parking in that location. <br />LaValle pointed out that KCM has indicated that they have no interest in <br />the pylon sign. The Planner replied that that is correct. KCM has asked to <br />separate the issue of the pylon sign from their application. KCM does not <br />^eed the pylon and does not want this issue tied up in the purchase of their <br />property. LaValle pointed out that Carl Johnson cannot have a pylon for <br />his business located on another property. The City Planner indicated that <br />this is a PUD; and at the time the property was platted the City left the <br />issue of the pylon to future discussion at the time the front property was <br />sold. <br />LaValle fe1C that Johnson should be notified that he cannoC have a pylon <br />for his business on another piece of property so that the issue is not <br />brought back to the Council. The Planner indicated that the buyer is aware <br />of this pylon issue. The Planner indicated that prior to final approvals for <br />KCM, this issue will have to be resolved. <br />The City Administrator noted that the prospective purchaser is aware of <br />the sign issue as is the realtor. The Administrator agreed that the sign <br />issue has been left for resolution aC the time the properly is sold. The <br />Administrator stated that the prospective buyer does not want to be <br />involved with the sign issue feeling that it is an issue between the City and <br />Mr. Johnson. <br />Blesener suggested thaC the Drywall Supply pylon could be moved back to <br />Mr. Johnson's property. The Planner noted that moving the sign would <br />decrease its visibility. The Planner stated Chat he knows Mr. Johnson's <br />preference is to leave the sign where it is. <br />Mr. LaValle ind-oduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2006-4-700 -CONTINUING THE PUBLIC <br />HEARING ON THE PUD PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN <br />OFFICE/SHOWROOM USE AS WELL AS BUILDING <br />REMODELING OF 3203 COUNTRY DRIVE AS REQUESTED BY <br />