My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-11-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
>
Minutes
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
07-11-2002 Planning Comm. Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2008 12:04:39 PM
Creation date
7/23/2008 11:47:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
M 1 N U'TCS <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 1 t, 2002 <br />Keis pointed out that the question is how long it will take to develop Lot 1. <br />Johnson indicated that once the property is subdivided, he has no incentive <br />not to develop Lot I _ 1-le noted that even though the soils are poor, the <br />property is prime real estate. Johnson went on to stated that Lot 1 is <br />actually swampland with a parking lot on it, and noted that when Opus <br />developed the property in 1972, they filled in a wetland. <br />The City Planner indicated that the proposal before the Commission is one <br />of concept, and made the following recommendations relative to the <br />concept plan submitted. <br />• Outdoor stora,~c on L.ot 3 should be specifically identified <br />as to size and location, including the fencing and screening <br />of the storage; <br />• If the lot line dividing Lots I and 2 from Lot 3 is not moved <br />further west, than Johnson should illustrate how the <br />buildings proposed will meet setbacks as well as <br />requirements for parkin~~, h'a1~ic circulation, and green <br />space; <br />• If the canopies are to be retained, Johnson should show <br />how they will be screened or improved so that the City can <br />evaluate whether or not they can remain. <br />• "fhe current screening plan is fairly sparse and should be <br />enhanced with plantings and banning; <br />• A timeline should be established for the redevelopment of <br />property abutting Country Drive. <br />Knudsen recommended approval of the concept Subdivision and Rezoning <br />to PUD for 3?03 Country Drive subject to compliance with the <br />recommendations as outlined by the City Planner as stated above. <br />Motion seconded br Rarraclou~~h. <br />Nlo(ion carried S - I Keis voted against. <br />OUTDOOR ~'fhe City Planner revie~n~ed his report dated July 2, 2002 relative to Little <br />STORAGE Canada's outdoor storage and screening requirements in the 1-P District <br />& SCREENING as compared to the requirements of other cities. The Planner felt that <br />IN THE 1-P Little Canada's ordinance requirements were sh'ong, but suggested that <br />DISTRICT the City may want to tape a tool: at the following: <br />o Minimum setbacla from adjoining properties; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.