06-13-84 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

?(Iill!7'I;S Ci.ty Co~.inci.1. .TUne 13> 1.9£~4 `Corlcton The City Attoeney replied Chat he thoughi; :i.C ~•ras. The Oi.Gy Cl.erlc (Cont:.) po:i.nted out t1i~.C if: the old code f,or escavati.on ~is still :i.n ef.fecY., then t1'~e G,it:~7 l~~is two Secti.on 916's. t9r, Fahey stated that the C-i_ty Att~rney could ~aorlc tni.s ouC. 'Che Ol.erk sug~est:ed that the Ylanner de~tl.~ai.th excavaCion i.n a separaCe ordinance, i4rs. ~lard~i.n:i stated t:htat she tias son~~r more concerns on thi.s top~i.c thaC shte wi11 rai-se at the nexi:. Counc~,i1 meetinf;. `4r. T'ahey ~reporCecl thaC he ha;; r~vi.ewed p~st r~eeting m;inutes and Plann~r's ra~-vores and dete~rrni.ned th~t the C~i_ty has i~ot approve<1 a tandscape plan f:or Chis area. T~ahey staCed Chat he cannoC f.irid anyClli.nf; on the e.r,act brea'ti i-n „rade Lor t~e propert~~ bui~. did detennine t:i~at: the C:Lty roanted the i~urm on Ghe i~ndustria7. propeirty and not Che res:i.den[;ia1. 1lahey atatecl tkist he researched mi.mrt~s bac'< to P4ay of 1979. Pahey r~aported tt~at i.n Niay of 1981 ~he City adoPted a re,olution ~ etiti.ng C'siat no further bui7.cling permi.t.:s would be i_ssuect for E, P or C imti1. a smti.sfac~tory landsc<ape ptan w~~;; submitceci ~i-~~I th~is is ahere t;he burm should have beEn incl~i_cated. A1so Che burm was; to have been on the. industri.&7. larid. Pahey stated thaC the Ci.ty a~prove.d r, }.', G, and H conti_n£;ent upon the Pl.annea-'s rFCOmmenda[ions and a saCisf.actor~ 1.andscape p1.an for L:, F, G, and C. Also, the landscaE~:i.n;; [or 'CracC C w;:is to Izave b~en conPined Co Che iiidustr~i.al propert.y. P4r-. Porsberd ,tatec'1 thnt: t6e peobl.em i.s that: ?4r. Lec <lid not: ].eave r-_no~.i~1~ room to landscape on the industrial. oroperty, i3l.ackton wa~s iristal,ted ri.ght up to Cne R_l. property and the burm *;ras si.ipposecl to be on the industri.til prooer,ty. 'Pk~e Marcl~ ].~?81 Planne~r.•'s report di_d not recornrnend approval. of the landscaoi.n~r, nlan subrn~i.tteel, ~~ccordi_ng to i1:r. ?%aPiey. ~[x. Lee aslced ~i.,E Chat meanC tl~iat Che 1979 plan caeAS never approve.d. l~ahey r.epl.i.ed cl~iat. t:l~i:i.s i.s corr~^.ct.. F~[c~. PorsbF~rp, stated t.Jiat the C~it~ is concerned about thr property heCoieen the resident:i.al propert_y and 7'racC C. I'ahey stated that ~in Oct:ober of. 19F32 Che burm was aglin di-scussed, but. no ~~etioi~~ talcen. Also, at that: inec.tinp, i-t coas po~intecl out Chnt the May ',1931 ~ig>prov~l. w~1s contingenC Gipon the P~tanner's report.: and some oE~ Chese recommendat~i.ons l~~ad not. been acted upon. hf,r,~ ~ahty rtated that ~in OctoL~er of ;L9F32 the City wes stilt at odds w-i.th a(r. Lcze over 7.ancLscap~ing. I?a~;e --11-