05-07-09 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 7, 2009 Maietta replied that cost would be the concern. He was also concerned that a roof would hinder the hauler's access to the dumpster. Knudsen noted that he looked at the site today, and the dumpster was full with materials sticking up from the dumpster. Knudsen felt that a roof would provide added screening. Maietta stated that he did not see the necessity for a roof and indicated that he could make the trash enclosure walls higher to provide for more screening. The City Planner indicated that a roof on the trash enclosure is not a Code requirement, but is a common improvement to a dumpster enclosure. The Planner also noted that the roofed enclosure would be consistent with other parts of this project. The Planner agreed that there is an inconvenience factor. Knudsen felt that before the Commission could act on the PUD Amendment, it needed more detailed drawings of the enclosure as well as material specifications. The Planner indicated that the Commission could table action on the request pending receipt of this information, or could pass a recommendation on to the Council with conditions. Duray asked if the roof would match the roof on the other enclosure on the property. The Planner replied that that is what he would envision. The Planner indicated that typically an architectural view of the project would be submitted. No plans have been received to show what the building will look like. The Planner suggested that the Commission identify the minimum standards that must be met and could then either allow the request to go forward to the Council, or could table action subject to receipt of architectural plans. Knudsen stated that he did not want to create an undue hardship on the applicant, but felt that architectural plans were needed. Knudsen noted that the enclosure is proposed to sit on top of a sidewalk area. He also noted that the height of the structure is unknown. The City Planner stated that he did not presume to design the structure for the applicant, and assumed that an architect would design it taking into consideration the City's code requirements and the operational needs of the business. Knudsen felt that the matter should be tabled so that the applicant can have the structure designed. He felt action by the Commission was premature at this point. The City Planner noted that there are code compliance issues on this property, but there was no urgency to act on the PUD Amendment this evening. Knudsen felt the Commission did not have enough information to act. He felt the applicant does not have enough information to comment on the height of the structure or to agree -5-