04-21-98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Schiferl, Teague responded the property on the left has an existing home on it. Mr. Peterson would sell the property. The houses share a driveway and Mr. Peterson will be constructing a new driveway. Livingston asked how far would the adjusted lot line be from that house. Teague answered that the lot line would be five and one-half feet from the existing house. The garage would also be five and one-half feet from the lot line. Therefore, it would meet the Code requirements. Livingston asked Teague if he had pictures of the site. Teague apologized for not having slides. Teague said he took many slides, but the company that provided the developing service no longer does that work. The vendors that Teague contacted need a two-week lead time. Livingston asked if the Commission had questions. There was no response. Livingston asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on the issue. There was no response. Motion by O’Brien, seconded by Zisla, to. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Zisla pointed out there was a word omitted in the last line of paragraph four of the resolution. It should read, “on Parcel A.” Motion by Zisla, seconded by Livingston, TO ADOPT THE AMENDED RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING PL-244NC-109. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. APPROVAL OF AND LP-38, PUD-6 and PL-243 Industrial Equities, Inc. Teague reviewed the planning report concerning an application for Site Plan Review, Planned Unit Development, and minor subdivision to create a new industrial lot and construct a 40,125 square foot building in the BCP II area. Livingston asked if the Commission had any questions. No one responded. Livingston asked if the applicant wished to speak. The applicant said he had nothing to add unless someone had a question. Zisla stated that, during the Highway 8 Corridor Study, there was some discussion about the appearance of the community from I-35W and about a cohesive landscape treatment. Has the City Forester or the Highway 8 Corridor Study’s consultant reviewed the landscape treatment? Teague said the Forester reviewed the landscape plan and his comments were favorable. Mattila said staff worked with John Allen, the applicant, months ago to set up this project. Staff emphasized the need for a green area on the freeway side of the building. The applicant is providing such a green area in the setback area between the freeway and the edge of the building. This landscaping would conform to the Study’s recommendations. Zisla said the Highway 8 Task Force discussed a coherent form of landscaping along the freeway rather than just the lack of screening. Zisla said he was thinking of the large outdoor storage area for one of the first buildings we approved in that area. At the time, the Commission had a lengthy discussion on that variance. Zisla said, when he drives by the site now, he thinks the Commission should have paid more attention to the appearance of the site from the freeway. Zisla said his comments tonight would not change the substance of the decision. Mr. Allen has been cooperative with the City and staff and has done what we have required. Zisla said we should give some additional thought about the look of the site from the freeway. Mattila commented that, because of the Study, we are looking for the provision of evergreen plantings along the freeway. Before the Study was done, we dealt with the material the State Highway Department provided, which were Russian Olive trees and provided very little screening. Now when we look at a freeway site, we are looking for evergreens and this site provides such screening. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1998\04-21-98.WPD