My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-24-1988 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
08-24-1988 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 1:29:10 PM
Creation date
6/12/2013 10:37:02 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
125
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 11, 1988 <br />Movers Kane stated that the Marketplace would like to go on record as being <br />Warehouse concerned that the new sign requested by Movers Warehouse will block <br />CUP the visibility of the Marketplace sign. <br />(Cont.) <br />R &S <br />Automotive <br />Mr. Costa recommended approval of the conditional use permit requested <br />by Movers Warehouse for a second free- standing sign on their property. <br />Motion seconded by DeLonais. <br />Motion carried 5 - 0. <br />Mr. Bob DeBace, representing R & S Automotive, appeared before the <br />Commission requesting PUD approval so that R & S can put an addition <br />onto their building as well as an addition onto the Myers Enterprises <br />building. DeBace reported that the PUD has been recommended by the <br />City Planner as the way to handle this request. <br />DeBace expressed concern with the Planner's recommendation as contained <br />in his August 8, 1988 report that 30 feet of road right -of -way be <br />dedicated by R & S. DeBace pointed out that only 20 feet of right -of -way <br />is required of the Zilge property. DeBace pointed out that by dedicating <br />30 feet of right -of -way, one of the R & S lots would only have 90 feet <br />of frontage and, therefore, not meet Code requirements. <br />The Planner explained that commercial and industrialroads are required <br />to have 60 feet of right -of -way, however, in this instance there is only <br />room for 50 feet. The Planner pointed out that the current right -of -way <br />is only 40 feet which is too narrow. There is no boulevard room for snow <br />storage. <br />The Planner also explained that by approving a PUD on the property, the <br />City is guaranteeing that the 90 foot lot would be conforming and could <br />be sold some time in the future as a 90 foot lot. <br />R & S suggested that if the road is ever widened that the additional 10 <br />feet of right -of -way be dedicated at that time. <br />The Planner felt the right -of -way should be acquired at this time. <br />The Planner pointed out that the road would not be widened at this time <br />so the additional right -of -way being dedicated would make no difference <br />to the existing situation. <br />DeBace felt it was a hardship to R & S to require 30 feet of right -of -way <br />from their property and only 20 feet from the Zilge property. DeBace <br />pointed out that R & S has worked for a year to obtain an encroachment <br />license from NSP and would like to get moving on the addition since they <br />will lose a tenant if they cannot provide more space. <br />DeBace was also concerned with the Planner's recommendation that R & S <br />eliminate the junk yard within 3 years. DeBace pointed out that R & S <br />is eliminating the junk yard, but felt that it may take longer than 3 <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.