Laserfiche WebLink
Planning & Zoning Board <br />April 13, 2005 <br />Page 12 <br />Under the new zoning ordinance, the site plan review is done administratively. However, <br />a Conditional Use Permit amendment is necessary, and a site plan review is part of the <br />CUP review. <br />Because this application involves the CUP amendment, it is also appropriate to review <br />the conditions placed on the site through the last CUP amendment in 1999. <br />Staff was recommending approval subject to the following conditions: <br />1. Construction must comply with the requirements of the Centennial Fire <br />Department, including the connection of the existing buildings to municipal water <br />for fire sprinkling. <br />2. A performance agreement between the City and the developer must be executed <br />prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject site. <br />3. A lighting plan in conformance with the zoning code must be submitted for <br />review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of building permits. <br />4. The proposed addition is subject to double permit fees as construction was begun <br />to the issuance of any building permits. <br />Mr. Laden asked if there was an existing awning. Mr. Bengtson replied there was not an <br />awning, but there might have been an overhang at some point in the past. <br />Mr. Nelson stated he lived in this neighborhood and he has had several people speak to <br />him about the lighting. He asked if they could review the lighting for the entire site under <br />this PUD. He expressed concern that this was not up to lighting code. Mr. Bengtson <br />replied the application before them was for the awning, but they could recommend that <br />staff investigate the lighting on site to ensure it is in compliance with the previous <br />approvals, but to change what was approved in the past, was probably not something they <br />wanted to undertake with this request. <br />Mr. Nelson stated he understood the business had been in existence for a long time and in <br />many cases, before the housing was there, but he believed the lighting did not meet Code <br />and it should be looked at. <br />Mr. Laden asked what was the use of the awning. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not sure <br />what the awning use was for, but it might be to cover the fuel tank. <br />Chair Rafferty asked if this was for storage, was that an appropriate area for storage. He <br />asked if this was a negative to the neighbors to the north. Mr. Bengtson replied storage <br />would be more imposing than what was there now. <br />Mr. Laden stated he believed the Comprehensive Plan addressed this site as possibly <br />relocating. He asked if this was accurate and had there been any action on this. Mr. <br />Bengtson replied he was not familiar with that part of the Comprehensive Plan, but <br />because this was in a residential area, that was a possibility. <br />• <br />• <br />• <br />