Laserfiche WebLink
1►/gounds Vievv PlannYng Commission <br />Reg�lar I�eeting <br />4. Appro�al of 1Vlinutes <br />�i. Iiecember 209 2000 <br />MOTIQN/SECOND: Miiler/T�aden. To apprave #he D <br />Minutes as presented. <br />Ayes — 6 Nays - 0 <br />5. Pla�nr�ag Case i�a. �3E00-002 <br />Properry in�volved: 766� Greenfield A� <br />Review and Discuss Site Plans for a 3,500 , Squa <br />Consideration of Resolution 646-01, a Resoluti� <br />Council Appraval. <br />Applicant: Tony Mezzeuga ; <br />Community Development Director Erics <br />develapment review io construct an offic <br />of office space. This matter was before,i <br />review. . <br />Staff spolce to ihe applicant, <br />concerning;;severai issues tlz <br />fihe chan�es"� aud has subznitt <br />tliis is a, r <br />.Taniaary 17, 2001 <br />Page 2 <br />er 20, 2004.IVIeetii�g <br />� <br />MOtiOXi CaTrie(� <br />ue. <br />Eoot . Office Building, <br />Recofninending City <br />ec�uest for: approval oi a <br />mately`2,Ofl0 square feet <br />�n on January 3, 2001 for <br />on January 3, 2001 <br />VIr. Mezzenga agreed to <br />; Comznission for <br />Community D.�velopment Director.Ericson;noted there were still a few zssues that needed <br />to be addressed by tfie Pl�anning Cozninissiozi bafore it would consider a recommendation <br />to Council, such as ihe direction of storrri water runoff indicated on the site plan vvith <br />arrows,.the'landscaping areas shown and the schedule ofplantings to be used, and the <br />identification of the screeiung and`fencing to be utilized. The landscape plan shall be <br />reviewed by the City Forester. : <br />; I?irector Ericson <br />city code require: <br />Cit}i would requi <br />bein� located zn'� <br />:, . <br />c�teci that he did not believe signage to be an issue provided it meeis <br />ts He stated he had spol�en to Mr. Mezzenga and notified him the <br />monument type sign rather than a pole type sign due to the building <br />idential neighborhood. <br />Cornrnissioner 3ohnson uiquired as to what the setback for the parlcing lot to County <br />Road I was. <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated the setback was originally shown to <br />be 26 feet, but was revised to show a 13-foot setback, j <br />