My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-27-1988 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1988
>
01-27-1988 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2013 11:57:26 AM
Creation date
6/12/2013 11:55:50 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
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 />Jan. 14, 1988 <br />Paving Of DeLonais pointed out that residential driveways are usually paved. <br />Parking <br />Lots Timmons noted that there are some residential properties with long <br />(Cont.) driveways and room for quite a bit of parking. <br />Davison pointed out that the matter came up in the Ryan Industrial <br />Park where there were large unpaved areas used for parking. There <br />have been problems with dust control, and a hard surface would control <br />dust. <br />Herkenhoff suggested that the amendment be revised to require parking <br />lots of 3 parking spaces and greater to be hard surfaced. <br />The Planner pointed out that almost every commercial or industrial <br />building in the City has at least 4 or 5 parking spaces. <br />DeLonais asked the amount of parking required for R -1 and R -2 properties. <br />The Planner stated that the ordinance requires 2 parking spaces for <br />each dwelling unit. <br />DeLonais suggested that the matter be tabled so that the Commission <br />could give further consideration to the amount of parking required <br />before the parking area needs to be hard- surfaced. <br />The Planner noted that if the Commission requires 3 parking spaces <br />before hard surface, then every development except for single family <br />would fall under the ordinance. <br />The Planner noted that the ordinance amendment requires the City <br />Engineer to review development proposals. <br />The Commission felt that the Engineer did not need to review residential <br />development, unless the Building Inspector referred such development to <br />the Engineer. <br />DeLonais recommended that the proposed ordinance amendment submitted <br />by the City Planner requiring the paving of parking lots be approved <br />subject to the requirement of paving of parking lots at least 3 parking <br />spaces in size and with the amendment that at the discretion of the <br />Building Inspector, the City Engineer would be required to review <br />residential developments. <br />Motion seconded by Schweizer. <br />Motion carried 6 - 0. <br />Joel Hesson The City Planner reported that he had no information on the agenda <br />& Foyt addition regarding the Foyt variance on Reidmond Avenue. <br />Joel Hesson <br />The Commission noted that Joel Hesson was not present to present his <br />concern to the Commission. <br />Page 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.