Laserfiche WebLink
~~'nNUT~s <br />PLANNING CON1~4[ISSION <br />JLiLY 11, 20112 <br />Keis pointed out chat the question is ho~~ 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 L I-[e noted that even though the soils are poor, the <br />property is prime real estate. Johnson Gwent on to stated that Lot 1 is <br />actually swvnpland with a parkin, 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 Che Ltroposal before the Commission is one <br />of concept, and made t'he following recommendations relative to Che <br />concepC plan submitt'ecl <br />o Outdoor stoa<~ge on Lot :> should be specifically identified <br />as to size and location, including the fencing and screening <br />of~the storage: <br />• IFthc lot line dividing, Lots I and 2 from Lot 3 is not moved <br />further ~tieSC, than Johnson should illustrate how the <br />building=s proposed will meet setbacks as well as <br />requirements (ix parkin„ traffic circulation, and ~~reen <br />space: <br />fhthe canopies are to be retained, Johnson should show <br />how then will be screened or improved so that the City can <br />evaluate whether or not they can remain. <br />The current screenim, plan is fairly sparse and should be <br />enhance-d :~,~ith plantings and bermin~,; <br />o ~\ timelini: 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 3203 Country Drive subject to compliance with the <br />recununendations as ixttlinecl by the City Planner as stated above. <br />\lotion seconded by t3arracluu<,h. <br />\4otion carried i - I . Keis vcued a~zainst. <br />OUTDOOR l'he City Planner reviewed his report dated July 2, 2002 relative to Little <br />STORAGE Canada's outdoor storage and screening requirements in the I-P District <br />& SCREENING as compared to the requirements of other cities. The Planner felt that <br />IN THE [-P Little Canada's ordinance requirements ~-vere strong„ but s'u~rgested that <br />DIS'1'f2fC"f' the City may ~:nuu to take a Ipol: ar the Following; <br />o Nlininnnn setbaela from adjoinin<, properties; <br />48- <br />