Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />February 21, 1984 <br />Page Seven <br /> <br />request for the future, should the Masonic Lodge lose the tennant they now have. <br />Councilmember Engstrom indicated that he felt the Masonic Lodge was an asset to <br />the community and therefore, was in favor of granting the variance request for <br />the division of space. <br /> <br />Councilmember Gunkel indicated that the building was there, it was a nonconforming <br />use but that the amortization period for the nonconforming use was sixty years. <br />Councilmember Gunkel indicated that should the Masonic Lodge have financial problems <br />and the building were to be sold, what were the alternatives? Councilmember Gunkel <br />further indicated that she viewed the request as Councilmember Engstrom did; <br />that is, that it was a request for the division of space. Councilmember Gunkel <br />further indicated that new types of businesses could perhaps be less disruptive <br />to the community than the present occupant. Councilmember Gunkel further indicated <br />that the City Council could place various conditions and restrictions on the variance, <br />should it be granted. <br /> <br />General discussion was carried on regarding the types of businesses that could occupy <br />the Masonic Lodge, number of vehicle restrictions that could be placed upon the <br />Masonic Lodge, and the various ways the conditional use could be handled by the <br />City Council. <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the City Council could deal with specific <br />concerns through the conditions in the granting of the variance request. Further <br />discussion was carried on regarding the type of renters, the location of the pro- <br />perty, and business controls that could be placed on the variance request. <br /> <br />Discussion was also carried on regarding the granting of the variance with the two- <br />year condition and should it not be used, would the variance request lapse. The <br />City Administrator indicated that if the variance request was not used, it would <br />lapse if the two-year condition was placed on the variance, but further indicated <br />that with the Lakeland Communications occupying the Lodge, the variance request <br />would be implemented. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE MASONIC LODGE NONCONFORMING <br />USE VARIANCE REQUEST BE CONTINUED UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT A MEETING BETWEEN REPRESENT- <br />ATIVES OF THE MASONIC LODGE, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY COUNCIL <br />BE HELD TO DISCUSS THE CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. COUNCILMEMBER ENGSTROM <br />SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. <br /> <br />A joint meeting of three Masonic Lodge representatives, three neighborhood repre- <br />sentatives and the City Council was scheduled for March 6th at the Masonic Lodge <br />at 7:30 p.m. <br /> <br />11. Pay Estimate for Gates Avenue Improvement Project <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO APPROVE PAY ESTIMATE NUMBER 6 FOR THE GATES AVENUE <br />IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,107. COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL SECONDED THE <br />MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 3-0. <br /> <br />11~.Transient Merchant Ordinance Amendment <br /> <br />The City Administrator indicated that the ordinance amendment was basically proposed <br />