Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Johnson suggested the City Code ordinance could be amended to say if you are <br />adding space without adding jobs, additional parking is not needed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer stated he would be more comfortable if they provided documentation that <br />thcy do not need the additional parking. <br /> <br />Commissioner Brauer asked about the comment about White Oaks that did not survive and <br />should bc rcplaccd. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald explained that the original site plan required landscaping surety, and <br />since thcy are coming with a new site plan it seems reasonable that they should replace any <br />landscaping that did not survive. <br /> <br />Chairpcrson 'Nixt asked if this feeds into the regional pond, and the drainage currently provided <br />lbr thc site is adequate for the addition. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Wald indicated it does feed into the regional pond, and the drainage is <br />adequate. <br /> <br />Chairperson Nixt asked if the applicant has any concerns with the Staff Review Letter, which <br />they did not. <br /> <br />Motion by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Levine, to recommend that the <br />City Council grant approval of the proposed site plan contingent upon compliance with City Staff <br />Review I Jetter dated April 29, 2005. <br /> <br />Amendmcnt by Co~nmissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Levine to require "proof <br />o f park ing" for 7 additional spaces. <br /> <br />Amendment Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Levine, Brauer, <br />Shepherd and Van Scoy. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Watson. <br /> <br />Motion Carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Nixt, Commissioners Johnson, Levine, Brauer, <br />Shepherd and Van Scoy. Voting No: None. Absent: Commissioner Watson. <br /> <br />Case #4: <br /> <br />Request for Sketch Plan Review of Shade Tree Creek; Case of Shade Tree <br />Construction <br /> <br />A ssociatc Planner Wald advised that Shade Tree Construction has applied for sketch plan review <br />to dcvck>p 16 single-family lots on the property generally located south of 177th Avenue. She <br />indicated thc property is 40 acres in size and is currently located in the R-1 Rural Developing <br />district, with a minimum density of 1 lot per 2.5 acres, or 0.4 units per acre, and as submitted the <br />sketch plan is showing approximately 0.4 units per acre. She stated all of the proposed lots <br />appear to meet the R-1 Rural Developing standards for lot width, size, and frontage on a public <br /> <br />Planning Commission/May 5, 2005 <br /> Page 4 of 19 <br /> <br /> <br />