Laserfiche WebLink
Chairperson Nix~ asked it' tttc appiica~t had reviewed the Staff review letter. <br /> <br />Mr. Joh~s(m :4tated he has, and ha; ['~{) problems with it. <br /> <br />Chairpcrsol~ Mixi asked il' there ~x,~s :~. lighting plan. <br /> <br />Mi'..lolmso~ >~tatcd it would be co,ni~tg in on Monday. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixi asked ii thc. re wis a screened waste area. <br /> <br />Mi'..lohnsoli ~;tated it is on ;lie plaa. <br /> <br />Motion by (;hairperson Ni×t, sec, reded by Commissioner Shepherd to recormnend that the City <br />Council gram approval o[ the p~oposed site plan contingent upon compliance with city Staff <br />Review l.ettcr &;ted April 30. 2004. and resolution of the sewer and water access issues prior to <br />bringing thc site plan to r}ac City Council. and reflecting applicant's request for fencing and the <br />con:elating reduction in IandscapiJ~g. <br /> <br />Motion ran'lcd. Voting Yes: C}~airperson Nixt. Commissioners Shepherd, Brauer and Jeffrey. <br />Voting No: No~,z. Abscr, t: Com;nissioners Jolmson, Van Scoy and Watson. <br /> <br />Case #6 <br /> <br />Request fl~r Site l~la~ Review; Case of Sharp and Associates <br /> <br />Prescntatio u <br /> <br />Associate P/miner Geisler advised Shm33 and Associates is proposing to construct a 3,825-square- <br />foot o['tScc alKt v..'m;chouse bui]di~g that will be occupied by Northern Technologies Inc. on the <br />property generally located alt the zorner of ]41st Avenue and Basalt Street. She stated the new <br />()fl:icc and ~,x,m'c]totlse bui]dii~g is. located iix the E-1 Employment District m~d is considered a <br />permiucd usc in this district. Sin: ir~dicated the subject property is approximately 1.03 acres in <br />size. 1.o[ covcra!¢e ['or thc propos:xl project is approximately 8.5%~ She stated the proposed site <br />plan meets th~: required I]'ont, rear and side yard setbacks. <br /> <br />Associate l~lztnncr Geisler further .tdx-ised the landscaping plan is acceptable, and the grading and <br />ch'ainaL2e plan wi 11 need to 1~: t~ev sed to address the comments outlined in the City Staff review <br />letter. She indic;,.ted the exterior r,~atc:rials are proposed to be concrete masonry units. <br /> <br />Associate Pittance: Geisler stated ti~e current site plans are showing access fi'om an area that is not <br />cul:rclatly impmv~M, and ~ml'l! is rc c~)mmending that access not be put in at this time. <br /> <br />Commission In put <br /> <br />Chah'pcrso,} Nixt asked if the app leant had received the Staff Review Letter. <br /> <br />Plami~g Commission/May 6, 2004 <br /> Page 11 of 22 <br /> <br />Pll <br /> <br /> <br />