CCP 02272023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment A Mr. Paschke indicated that was correct because landscaping would be required to be 40 41 planted as well. 42 Member Schaffhausen asked if the fence would help with lighting as well. 43 Mr. Paschke indicated it will because this parking lot will have some sort of lighting for 44 the parking lot. Staff will collaborate with the applicant on the lighting, and he thought 45 the goal is to make certain that the light that overflows and spills off of the property is far 46 less than what the Code requires. 47 Member McGehee indicated in the plan, the stormwater pond has been moved over to the 48 extra piece of land and she wondered if there was a reason to not actually move that one 49 parking lot over, closer to their property and leaving the wetland alone, since that is 50 where their employees are going to park. 51 Mr. Paschke thought the applicant would need to answer that question. 52 Vice Chair Pribyl asked if the reason why this was coming before the Commission as a 53 conditional use was primarily because it is just a parking lot. 54 Mr. Paschke indicated that was correct. 55 Mr. Kevin Anderson, representing AUNI Holdings addressed the Commission. 56 Mr. Scott Pieper, owner of 2929 Long Lake building addressed the Commission 57 regarding the building design and how it currently works with vans arriving and leaving. 58 He noted the bottleneck is going to become parking for employees. He reviewed the 59 available and projected parking lot spaces for employee vehicles with the Commission. 60 Member Schaffhausen asked how the employees will travel from the parking lot to the 61 facility. 62 Mr. Pieper explained the way he would see it is a covered stairwell would be constructed 63 to go from the parking lot down to the base. It would have to come in on the southwest 64 corner. 65 Member Bjorum asked if that will need to be handicap accessible if accessible parking 66 stalls are being provided. 67 Mr. Paschke thought the way around that will be the City path this being required. There 68 will be a path that connects to the existing one and there is an assumption that the City 69 sidewalk might be ADA compliant to take a person all the way down and around to get 70 them into the building. 71 Mr. Pieper explained there is ADA compliancy on the north end. The sidewalk is 72 compliant with two stalls outside and handicap accessibility inside the building. 73 Member Bjorum asked with the requirement in the packet of the City’s eight-foot path, 74 essentially it is not shown on this site plan so in reality this whole thing would be pushed 75 further north to accommodate that. 76 Mr. Paschke explained that is incorrect, it will work with what is there, he believed. It is 77 just an extension of the existing path. 78 Vice Chair Pribyl asked regarding the stormwater pond, she assumed that is potentially 79 located where it is shown because of the natural grade of the site.