Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />Planning Commission <br />Nov. 8, 1984 <br />Poolside <br />(Cont.) <br />Otterkill <br />Plastering <br />The Planner stated that the Poolside plan was a definite improvement, <br />but stated to keep the plan as is a PUD would be necessary. The <br />Planner stated that a PUD would not restrict Poolside from subdtvding <br />the property at a later date. <br />Mrs. Timmons stated that the Commission should recommend approval of <br />a PUD and then the proposal does not have to come back to the <br />Commission. <br />Mr. DeLonais recommended approval of the Poolside proposal subject <br />to the recommendations of the City Planner and with the suggestion <br />that a PUD be considered for the development. <br />Motion seconded by Mrs. Timmons. <br />Motion carried 7 — 0. <br />Mr. Krum appeared before the Commission representing Otterkill <br />Plastering Company. Mr. Krum reported that they were agreeable <br />to joining the two buildings together as recommended in the Planner's <br />report. <br />Mr. Jim Westlund stated that he would like a variance as regards <br />installation of curbing. Westlund pointed out that many other <br />businesses in the area do not have curbing. <br />Mr. Ducharme stated that this was a situation that the city is trying <br />to correct. Ducharme also pointed out that the existing building will <br />probably have to be sprinklered. <br />Mr. Krum asked about the surfacing requirement and pointed out that <br />the area will he for the storage of equipment and trucks. The Planner <br />replied that the ordinance requires surfacing, but it has to he dust <br />controlled surfacing and not necessarily blacktop. <br />Mr. Westlund was concerned that curbing would be ripped up by <br />snowplows. <br />Mr. Krum asked if pre —cast curbing would be all right and stated that <br />they would like to install wheel stops around the building. <br />The Planner thought that this would be O.K. <br />Mr. Krum asked if it would be necessary to install the curbing at the <br />back of the building. Mrs. Timmons stated that a precedent would be <br />set if this were not required as it is called for in the ordinance. <br />The Planner stated that the present building was not governed by the <br />code, but since there is a request for expansion, the building should <br />be brought into compliance. <br />Page —6— <br />