Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTITCH-TECH WAREHOUSE - EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE - 16-88B - CORRESPONDENCE - MEETING COMMUNICATIONNOTE TO FILE: RE: Meeting on Stitch -Tech, Inc. Meeting held at Stitch -Tech on April 26, 1988 at 2:30 p.m. Meeting attendees: Tom Peterson, Greg Conger, Jerry Jones, Sherry Albertson -Clark Intent of meeting: to discuss city review and processing of non -conforming use request. Jerry Jones was told the basic procedure for processing a non -conforming use; why this site is a non -conforming use and what would be the purpose of the May 5 neighborhood meeting. Mr. Jones was also informed that future development of the remainder of the site (northern -most area) would require review as a PUD. Mr. Jones expressed concerns re: - time involved in the process; - what happens if P & Z Board does not approve his request; - neighbors "stopping the request". A discussion took place regarding anticipated neighborhood concerns and issues, with noise, traffic and visual impacts the issues most expected to come from the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Jones was informed of needed requirements (ie. storm drainage report, on -site detention requirement). He indicated "no problems'' with this, since it is a code requirement. Discussion continued regarding how neighborhood input works into the process and what would happen between May 5 and the May 23rd P & Z meeting. A tour of the facility was given and the following items were discussed: - noise at the site comes from the shifter, which shifts rail cars to the building's spur line; - activity occurring outside is from rail cars being shifted to the spur line and from trucks coming to/from the site; - an average of 8 rail cars come/go to the site daily; - no vegetation can be located within 4' from the building (a contractual requirement for Mr. Jones); - a minor change to an existing interior curb may be proposed (Mr. Jones was instructed to show this on the site plan now); - a total of 60,000 square feet of building expansion may be the ultimate desire of the applicant (Mr. Jones was instructed to show and address the entire addition area at this time and then could phase actual construction; rather than proposing an addition now and one in the near future). • \ • 0 J 3 �Z _Q N O „gin O Q' _ O1� H c? L_ W •--• W W = W v � � No o N W O � _ Z o rza _d ra z 3 � J 14 ®�� W O z 11 J d 105 NUMBERS, CLIENT SHEET NUMOER',-_