My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-24-2002 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
07-24-2002 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/14/2012 9:47:50 AM
Creation date
5/14/2012 9:41:26 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />JULY 11, 2002 <br />prefer to add on to that building and keep the property along Country <br />Drive as one large lot rather than dividing it into two. <br />13arraclough questioned the PUD zoning being proposed for Lot 3 versus <br />the 1 -1 that has been referred to by Germanson. <br />The City Planner noted the need For PUD Zoning for Lot 3 given it will <br />not have frontage on a public street. The Planner stated that his <br />recommendation would be that additional depth be added to Lots 1 and 2 <br />in order to accommodate the size buildings the City would like to see <br />developed on this site The Planner stated that he questioned the ability to <br />meeting parking and circulation requirements on Lots 1 and 2 under the <br />concept shown. <br />Germanson pointed out the 24,045 square foot building behind the Knox <br />building and noted that the property line being Lot 2 cannot be moved <br />back any further without impacting that building. <br />Keis asked how much outdoor storage Johnson is seeking on Lot 3. <br />Johnson replied that Ile would like to have 2 acres of outdoor storage. <br />The City Planner again stated that in doing some rough calculations of the <br />size of Lots I and 2 as well as the building sizes on each of these lots, he <br />had strong concerns that the tvvo lots are too small to accommodate <br />parking and circulation requirements. <br />Duray stated that just looking at Lot 2 raises concerns about the ability to <br />meeting the City's parking requirements for that size building. <br />Germanson again stated that their engineer assured them that the sites <br />would meet all City Codes without the need for variances. <br />Duray stated that he was uncomfortable approving anything that would <br />result in a non - conforming situation. Keis stated that he, too, was <br />uncomfortable with the concept presented indicating that there are too <br />many unanswered questions. Keis noted that the City's goal has been to <br />get away from outdoor storage uses, and Johnson is seeking 2 acres of <br />outdoor storage. Keis also felt that the site layout does not appear to work <br />well and he has questions about hove the outdoor storage would be <br />screened. <br />Wojcik felt that retaining the canopies flies in the Pace of the City's goal to <br />clean up the site and eliminate outdoor storage. <br />9- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.