Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />Member Cunningham stated he was supportive but encouraged bathroom <br />facilities within the building by modifying condition "P'. <br />Chair Duncan asked for Interim Use Permit (IUP) to ha�e consistent expiration <br />dates. The first IUP should not be extended. Member Cunningham said two <br />years might create a problem. <br />Member Mulder noted that the first IUP coming due in two years is enough <br />leverage to have the School and Church take some permanent action. <br />Member Bakeman asked for buildings that ha�e presentable exteriors. <br />Thomas Paschke explained the Planning Commission and City Council ha�e the <br />ability to place conditions on timing for the site. Each year the IUP will be <br />reviewed and a report submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council. <br />Motion: Member Duncan moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to <br />recommend approval of an interim use permit expiring September 2004 for <br />Family Academy Charter School and Advent Lutheran Church (PF3392) to <br />allow a temporary 56-foot by 72-foot (4,032 sq.ft.) modular classroom south <br />of the existing school, based on the �ndings of Section 5, the conditions in <br />Section 6 of the project report dated June 5, 2002, and with an expiration <br />date of June 30, 2005, with the condition "I" amended as per 1�Tember <br />Cunningham, relative to requiring interior bathrooms within the modular <br />structure, including information on sanitary waste storage and pumping <br />plans. <br />Member Mulder and Member Cunningham asked if the building would be <br />sprinklered? (No) <br />Member Cunningham stated he was concerned about the composition of the <br />sanitary tanks themselves. <br />Member Peper asked for sanitary capacity of current structure. (No answer <br />available) . <br />Vote on motion: <br />Ayes: 5 <br />Nays: 0 <br />Motion carried. <br />