Laserfiche WebLink
nLGI03-2923 <br />JanuafyS, 20M <br />Paga3of3 <br />Staff perfonned a site visit with Hennepin County En\iranmental Services staff and <br />addressed the issues Planning Commission brought up during ^e woric session. Those <br />issues were: the appropriateness of curbing, paving the west paAing area vs. gravel, and <br />how effective is the proposed waste trap and skimming stnctuxe. Hennepin County did <br />not feel that the existing site would require extensive improvements regarding the afore <br />mentioned items and felt that they would best be addressed if isecessary, by the MCWD. <br />Additionally, during this site inspection it was noted that ue area behind the building to <br />the rear had an accumulation of scrap, scrap metal, inoperible trailers, tires, and general <br />debris. <br />bsues for consideration <br />1. Is the Planning Commission satisfied that the applicant has provided sufficient <br />information & obtained the proper authorizations to proceed with the project? <br />2. Does the Planning Commission feel that the debris arid other waste <br />located on the property be removed in conjunction with the approval of this <br />project? <br />Recommendation <br />Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the proposal provided the following <br />cchditions are met: <br />1. City Engineer's reconunendations must be implemezced. <br />2. Compliance with all other jurisdictional controls is isaincained. <br />3. Compliance with City Code 58-l(a) Maintenance of Private Property prior to <br />being placed on the City Council agenda for final renew. <br />1.: .. * ■ ■ ■ -}k 4^