Laserfiche WebLink
City Response to Melinda Luthin Appeal No. 2022-02 <br />Response 17: The staff report prepared for the project contains a full project description and <br />accompanying exhibits, including side plans, floor plans, elevations, landscape plans, and <br />renderings, that fully detail the project and its intended use as a flexible building for warehousing, <br />limited manufacturing, and distribution uses. <br />Comment 18: This comment states that the staff report and Planning Commission agenda packet <br />did not contain copies of the requested CUP and that it is therefore "impossible to know what the <br />Planning Commission was considering." <br />Response 18: Refer to Response No. 4. <br />Comment 19: The comment repeats the claim that the Planning Commission did not make a <br />proper motion for approving the CUP. <br />Response 19: Refer to Response No. 13. <br />Comment 20: The comment claims that the Planning Commission could not have approved the <br />CUP because only a resolution of approval was contained in the packet and not the application <br />itself. <br />Response 20: Refer to Response No. 4. <br />Comment 21: The comment repeats the claim that the Planning Commission could not have <br />approved the CUP because the CUP application was not provided in the agenda packet. <br />Response 21: Refer to Response No. 4. <br />Exhibit 15 <br />Page 5 of 5 <br />