07-24-2002 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY t 1, 2002 Keis pointed out that the question is how long it will take to develop Lot 1. Johnson indicated that once the property is subdivided, he has no incentive not to develop Lot I. He noted that even though the soils are poor, the property is prime real estate. Johnson went on to stated that Lot 1 is actually swampland with a parking lot on it, and noted that when Opus developed the property in 1972, they filled in a wetland. The City Planner indicated that the proposal before the Commission is one of concept, and made the following recommendations relative to the concept plan submitted • Outdoor storage on 1..ot 3 should be specifically identified as to size and location, including the fencing and screening of the storage; • lithe lot line dividing Lots I and 2 from Lot 3 is not moved further west, than Johnson should illustrate how the buildings proposed will meet setbacks as well as requirements for parking, traffic circulation, and green space, • lithe canopies are to be retained, Johnson should show how they will be screened or improved so that the City can evaluate whether or not they can remain. • The current screening plan is fairly sparse and should be enhanced with plantings and berming; • A timeline should be established for the redevelopment of property abutting Country Drive. Knudsen recommended approval or the concept Subdivision and Rezoning o PUD for 3203 County Drive subject to compliance with the recommendations as outlined by the City Planner as stated above. Motion seconded b 13arraclou<?h. Motion carried 5 - 1 Keis voted against OUTDOOR "flie City Planner reviewed his report dated July 2, 2002 relative to Little STORAGE Canada's outdoor storage and screening; requirements in the l -P District & SCREENING as compared to the requirements of other cities. The Planner felt that IN THE I -P Little Canada's ordinance requirements were strong, but suggested that DISTRICT the City may want to take a look at the following. • Minimum setbacks from adjoining properties;