My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-27-1986 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
08-27-1986 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2013 2:55:51 PM
Creation date
3/29/2013 2:54:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />August 14, 1936 <br />Text Frattalone replied that the business that is causing the noise will <br />Amendment be moving by September 1. <br />(Cont. <br />Herkenhoff asked if the landscaping businesses would be causing <br />much noise. <br />A representative of Prescription Landscaping replied that they have <br />two trucks and three trailers. They will be using the site for <br />storage of- equipment. The employees pick up the equipment at 7 <br />and is returned in the late afternoon. Prescription also stated <br />that the trucks will not be kept at the site in the winter, but <br />are taken home by the employees. The area that Prescription rents <br />is not heated. <br />Anderson Landscaping stated that they will have an office on the <br />site in addition to storing their equipment. They work 5 1/2 days <br />per week and no one will be on the premises after 7 P.M. Any noise <br />that is made will be made inside the building if they are doing <br />engine repair. <br />Timmons felt that noise could be controlled by the conditional use <br />permit as well as outdoor storage, parking, etc. <br />Schultz stated that he was not in favor because the City will not <br />be able to monitor the property. There is additional room in the <br />building for more businesses and Schultz felt that problems will <br />continue on the site. <br />Timmons felt that the proposed use of the property would protect <br />the property owners as long as the conditions listed in the <br />Planner's memo of .August 7 were adhered to. <br />Mrs. Schultz disagreed that this will be done. <br />Frattalone stated that he has done everything that the City has <br />requested him to do. <br />Mr. Magneson agreed that there has been a 400% improvement to the <br />property. <br />Frattalone agreed that the property did get out -of -hand, however, <br />he cleaned up the property when he was requested to do so. <br />Frattalone reported that he has tried to work on the situation <br />with Mr. Schultz, however, Schultz would like him to tear down <br />the building and put up duplexes. <br />Timmons pointed out that under B-3 zoning a public garage or a <br />garden store is allowed. Timmons stated that she would rather <br />see the proposed use than a public garage. Timmons also felt <br />that a garden supply store would request outdoor storage. <br />Timmons stated that she was in favor of the proposed use, provided <br />the property is cleaned up. <br />Page -6- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.