Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JANUARY 10, 2002 <br />1<nudsen agreed that the Knox-type use should not be duplicated, and the <br />City should take the opportunity now that the space is vacant to upgrade <br />and redefine the area. However, he would like to look at Johnson's plan <br />before any final decisions are made. <br />Carson asked if all building materials were stored inside if Johnson's plan <br />would fit the amended B-W District. The Planner replied that it would. <br />Johnson stated that he would try to accommodate the desires of the City as <br />much as possible. However, he indicated he would like the opportunity to <br />present his plan before the City adopts these rigid standards. Johnson felt <br />that the standards that were being considered for the B-W District took <br />away a lot oi'options that would otherwise allow small businesses to <br />survive. Johnson indicated that he would develop office/warehousing in <br />the front of the property with outdoor storage in the back. Johnson noted <br />that he would screen and landscape the outdoor storage area so that it <br />would not be visible. <br />Wojcik asked why the steel studs could not be stored inside. Johnson <br />replied that the cost of warehousing these studs would be too high given <br />the methods used for handling them. <br />Knudsen recommended that action on the B-W Zoning District <br />amendment be tabled until the February 14, 2002 Planning Commission <br />meeting to give the Commission a chance to review the Johnson proposal <br />for the Knox property. <br />Motion seconded by Roycraft. <br />Motion carried 5 to 2, Wojcik and Duray voted against. <br />Keis reminded Johnson that the Commission will want to upgrade this <br />area and that outdoor storage will be an issue. <br />SETBACK 1'he City Planner indicated that Mr. Sam Roberto is requesting a variance <br />VARIANCE & from required setback for a house he would like to construct on the <br />VACATION - northeast corner of Savage Lane and Rose Place. It was noted that Mr. <br />SAVAGE LANE/ Roberto was not present at the meeting. <br />ROSE PLACE - <br />ROBERTO Mr. Joseph Buche, Rose Place, pointed out that the road is gravel as it <br />abuts the Roberto property. He also felt that there were wetland and <br />wildlife issues associated with the development of this property. Buche <br />noted that if Roberto places his house so it fronts on Savage Lane, he <br />would be looking out his front window into Roberto's backyard. Buche <br />12 <br />