Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES <br /> APPROVED <br /> 117 Councilmember Lyden expressed some concern about the drive-through. The location is noisy and he <br /> 118 wonders if the developer is aware of the possible impact. Ms.Larsen noted that the developer is aware <br /> 119 and the site plan meets requirements (including screening). <br /> 120 Councilmember Stoesz asked if there are pedestal signs planned for freeway view? Ms. Larsen <br /> 121 explained there is nothing planned for the interstate signage. <br /> 122 Paul Schier, Maplewood, developer. There is much that goes into this type of procss; staff has been <br /> 123 very helpful. They (developers)are interested in getting it open and providing services as soon as the <br /> 124 development process will allow. <br /> 125 Councilmember Lyden moved to approve Resolution No. 21-40,Resolution No. 21-41 and Resolution <br /> 126 No. 21-42 as presented. Councilmember Ruhland seconded the motion. Motion carried on a voice <br /> 127 vote. <br /> 128 6C) Consider Resolution No. 21-38 Denying a Variance for a Second Driveway at 23 Century <br /> 129 Trail—City Planner Larsen reviewed a PowerPoint presentation (on file); she was brief as the matter <br /> 130 was fully reviewed at the council's last work session. The application is for a variance to allow a <br /> 131 second driveway for a second constructed garage. The Planning&Zoning Board did not approve a <br /> 132 motion on the matter; they did recommend review of the ordinance impacting driveway regulations. <br /> 133 Staff is recommending denial of this variance request as outlined in the staff report. <br /> 134 Councilmember Stoesz moved to approve Resolution No. 21-38 as presented. Motion failed for lack <br /> 135 of second. <br /> 136 Councilmember Lyden moved to approve the variance request. Councilmember Cavegn seconded the <br /> 137 motion. <br /> 138 Councilmember Stoesz asked if staff expects there will be additional variance requests if this were <br /> 139 approved; staff explained that they couldn't know that in advance but it would be a} recedent. <br /> 140 Councilmember Ruhland said it sounds like there was some miscommunication bet'een the City and <br /> 141 the homeowner as he developed his second garage. Staff will now have a new process that is clear. <br /> 142 He is in favor of looking at an ordinance change and he sees no reason to have a citizen wait a year <br /> 143 when there seems to be council support. He supports the variance. <br /> 144 Councilmember Cavegn said he reviewed the recent zoning training information pr ided by City <br /> 145 Attorney Squires. It's notable that the training recommends that the council practic reasonableness <br /> 146 when that is called for and he sees it applies in this case. <br /> 147 Councilmember Ruhland noted the location of the applicant's property on a cul-de-sac; he expects this <br /> 148 driveway may be an improvement. <br /> 149 Councilmember Lyden noted the aerial view of the property and why he thinks this passes the test <br /> 150 conformance to the area. The number of driveway(s) issue is different here because the two driveways <br /> 151 will be on different streets. <br /> 152 Derek Sadowski, applicant, noted that this has been discussed at great length and th site visited by <br /> 153 some councilmembers. He will leave the decision in the council's hands. <br /> 154 Mayor Rafferty remarked that while he is twisted, he would like to see the things fal into place the <br /> 155 proper way. <br /> 156 Councilmember Stoesz explained that he supports handling this matter through proper channels—by an <br /> 157 ordinance change. <br /> 4 <br />