Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />~xpansion of the Parabody facility on Lot 2 onto Lot 3. It is Parabody's desire to plat the wetland <br />a_rea Io the west as an outlet and deed ii to the City. This is acceptable to the City. It is necessm-y <br />to vacate the drainage and utility easement on what will be the former common property line <br />between Lots 2 and 3, and that proce.~s requires 'a public hearing in front of the City Council. <br />That hearing is scheduled for April 13 and as such, neighboring property owners have been <br />notified of the property replat, the expansion of the Parabody facility, and the need to vacate the <br />drainage and utility easement. Park dedication requirements were satisfied when the property was <br />previously platted as Lots 2 and 3 of Gateway North Indu~rial Park Plat 4. <br /> <br />Cbai~erson Anderson inquired what Parabody manufactures. Jen3' Dtmdra, Parabody Executive <br />Vice President, explained his company current manufactures strength consumer exercise products. <br />The new facility will manufacture treadmills ~nd exercise bikes. Parabody sells products for <br />homes. <br /> <br />Cormnisfioner Johnson questioned why Parabody was deeding the wetland back to the Ci~'. <br />Jesse Symynkywicz, 1U..K Staff Landscape Design.~, explained Parabody is concmd regardin.g <br />potential environmental issues with the land and ground water that may affect the wetland. It is h <br />the lands best in';cr~st to be deeded back i6 :the Citg. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnso:, seconded by Commissioner DempseT, to approve the sketd~ <br />plan for Life. Fitness Addition and recommenZ that City Council grant fin'S plat approvcl <br />comfingent upon compliance with ;he City Stall'Review Letter dated April 1, 1999. <br /> <br />/v~tion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Anderson, Commissioners Johnson, I2empsey, lensen, <br />Ken, scale, and NixX. VotingNo: /,tone. Absent: Cornmissionerl%'ivoda. <br /> <br />Case/t7: Request for Site Plan Review; Case of Lifetitne~s/Parabody, Inc. <br /> <br />Community Development Ass~ant Walther explained a request was received for site plan review <br />and approvaI fi.om t~arabody-LifeFitness for an expansion to the existing facility at 14150 Sunfish <br />Lake Boulevard NW. The existing building is 56,648 square feet in size and a 208,016 square <br />foot addition is proposed, for a total of 264,664 square fe:t. Building eov~age is restricted to <br />35-percent of the lot area, which is 259,182 excluding the wetland area that is proposed to be <br />deeded to the City. The expansion constitutes a 35.7-percent lot coverage. City Staff is not <br />recommo, n_ding a variance procedure because *.he wedand has not been officially split off from the <br />property at this point in time and if it weren't, the proposed expansion would not exceed the 35- <br />percent lot coverage restriction. Additionally, the lot coverage of 35.7-percent is still in the 35- <br />percent range and has not progressed to 35-percent. All proposed structure location complies <br />with all Setback requirements. <br /> <br />Community D~velopment Assistant Wahher stated the exterior finish on the expansion is <br />proposed to be a combination of painted smooth faced and ribbed concrete panels; the break area <br />on the west side of the building is proposed to be finished with corrugated metal panels. The <br />metal panels are not in compliance with City Code. Code requires concrete surfaces to be treated <br />with a decorative or textured material and the use oft. he smooth face requires an interpretation of <br /> <br />Planning Commission/April 6, 1999 <br /> l~age 8 of 12 <br /> <br /> <br />