PL MINUTES 12111979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i -2- ; The Chairman read the notice of the hearing which had been published and sent to all property owners within 200 feet of the property in question in accordance with City and State requirements. There was no one present who reported failure to receive such notice nor object to its content. The Commission had been requested to give concept approval as well as consider the variances for parking spaces and rearyard setbacks which will be necessary before Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stafford of Special Parts,may build in the St. Anthony Office Park, a building of similar size as their present operation in New Hope. Although the rearyard setback for the proposed building is five feet under that required for a storage facility to separate it from a R-1 district, since the adjoining property is a cemetery, this and the land- scaping required as screening between light industrial and residential property are not the major concerns, Mr. Berg said. Commission members however felt they should know whether parking requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance had been strictly enforced for other property owners in the park before they could consider permitting 70 (if the 9x19 foot standard is adopted) where 113 are required. Douglas C. Lingren of Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects, Inc. and Special Parts owners, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stafford discussed the site, parking and landscaping plans for the 40,000 sq. ft. building which will provide office, machine shop and warehouse space for their operation. • Mr. Stafford said he presently employs only 43 employees and would add a second shift rather than expand the physical plant because the machinery is so expensive. The business generates very little traffic from its customers. The building will be approximately 21 feet high but not more than 30 feet and the signage on the building will be less than that allowed. If the building's dimensions were pared down it might create hazardous working conditions in the machine shop. The hearing was closed at 8 :09 . The fact that the proposal called for a little more than half of the required parking spaces bothered Mr. Rymarchick and Mr. Bjorklund who indicated they might respond more positively if even 90 parking spaces could be provided so there would be adequate parking should the building be sold at a later date and usage changed. They did not feel they should be forced to make a hasty decision by the delays and deadlines for the project. Questions regarding the fact that quite a bit of the building is to be used for warehousing, which requires less parking spaces, had not been defined to the satisfaction of the Commission members. Mr. Marks suggested the City ordinance regarding parking for such developments is far more severe than might be necessary since the City had traditionally required more parking than needed resulting in enforcing "asphalt jungles" . Mr. Fornell pointed out the fact that there is rarely a problem with parking in the office park and the machine shop might be able to work out an arrangement with adjoining property owners for additional parking space when it might be needed as had been done in the case of the Teamsters building in the same park. He said staff sees no problem with the proposal as made, that the ordinance is a basis guide and that different types of manufacturing have differing parking requirements. Mr. and Mrs. Stafford assured the Commission they did