1999_0125_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Deb Bloom responded that a petition from Mr. Seaberg for a vacation would be accepted. Deb Bloom noted that the low area would be drained to the storm sewer. The applicant is providing the same right-of-way dedication on Fairview. Chair Harms asked for detail of the right-of-way and setbacks. Deb bloom stated if the road was unproved,a right turn would not be needed. The new curb would be approximately ten feet from the sideway. Mr. cox held an open house;three residents reviewed the concept. The plan is to totally renovate the existing structure. The applicant described the"land rnarle"nature of the existing building,which is over 60 years in age. It is structurally sound and an asset to the neighborhood. This is a low impact user who grill not have many customers in the office.The addition will be approximately 3,800 s.f.. Barbara wool,3092 Fairview, stated there is a blind spot at the intersection of "Y"and Fairview because of the building location. Dave Seaberg,3098 Fairview,part owner of property along county Road"Y' asked for County interests in this road(none at this time). He is concerned with the closeness of the building to the curb. A green boulevard will be constructed between building and curb or a sidewalk if required. Is the new parking lot to be lighted.? (only if required by city). Dan Seaberg noted that his major concerns are 1)the existing building, ) the blind spot created at the corner. Mr. cox said he is sensitive to the green space,landscaping and safety will increase because of new street lighting and new paving/definition to the corner. This will be a positive impact. Chair Harms asked for clarification of the setback from the curb to the building. There is 25-27 feet of distance from curb to building. Dave Seaberg said he originally owned most property in this area. He asked if a PUD had to account for all run-off. (late control will help).A sidewalk on the north side would help also. Member Olson asked for details on impervious surface and ponding}staff explained the policy on commercial impervious surfaces. Chair Harms asked if conditions could be attached to the PUD. Motion: Member Rhody moved,seconded by Member Cunningham}to recommend approval of the concept P.U.D.development plan for a 3,800 s.f.