My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-26-2003 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
02-26-2003 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2014 2:34:26 PM
Creation date
6/22/2012 9:54:01 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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
The Planning Commission reviewed the request and noted the applicant's indication <br />that he intended only to occupy the upper level of his two -level building at this time. In <br />addition, the applicant stated that he did not anticipate the need to expand beyond his <br />current capacity, which included no employees other than himself and his wife who acts <br />as an office administrative staff member. Because the business sees just one client at <br />a time, and there is little or no opportunity to increase the volume beyond the proposed <br />level, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the PUD amendment. A <br />condition to this recommendation was added that if and when the applicant would wish <br />to expand to the lower level of his building, he would need to further amend his permit, <br />giving the City the opportunity to review such an expansion as to its impact on parking <br />supply in the office park. <br />There appears to be no other aspect to the project than the potential impact on parking. <br />The building and site improvements are not proposed to change as a result of this <br />request. By approving the amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission, <br />the City would be defining office uses as including non - surgical hair replacement <br />services on the upper level of one of the office units. It is staff's position that this <br />amendment would not permit other retail services into the complex without further City <br />review and approval. <br />pc: Kathy Glanzer <br />Steve Westerhaus <br />Lee Elfering <br />Greg Schroeder <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.