My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-27-1989 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
09-27-1989 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/26/2013 1:39:52 PM
Creation date
6/26/2013 1:38:21 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
116
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 />September 14, 1989 <br />staff received a landscaping plan as part of the <br />original proposal. <br />The Planner then referred to the recent landscape plan <br />submitted by Slumberland, pointing out the notes which <br />he made on the plan. The Planner pointed out the <br />existence of a storage shed on the property, which is <br />in violation of City Codes and for which a building <br />permit was never taken out. The Planner suggested that <br />at the location of the storage shed, there should be <br />plantings of large evergreens or screening. That is <br />the area where Slumberland is proposing to store <br />semi - trailers, and the Planner recommended that the <br />area be screened. The Planner referred to the proposed <br />screening of the rear lot line of the Slumberland <br />property. The Planner stated that he is recommending a <br />staggered row of pine trees in this location. <br />DeLonais asked when landscaping would be installed. <br />The City Planner replied that landscaping is the last <br />phase of any project, and he would anticipate that the <br />remaining landscaping and paving would be done as one <br />phase after the building addition is completed. The <br />landscaping can be required prior to the issuance of an <br />occupancy permit in addition to the requirement of a <br />landscaping performance bond or letter of credit. <br />DeLonais asked about the Planner's report dated <br />September 14th which addresses the issue of parking. <br />The Planner replied that that issue was referred to in <br />previous reports as well. The Planner stated that the <br />applicant has indicated that there is no need for the <br />additional parking since it would not be used. The <br />Planner stated that the City can require the applicant <br />to prove that the additional parking is not needed, and <br />the first phase of the project was allowed to proceed <br />without the additional parking. <br />Kaufman reported that the expansion is for additional <br />warehouse space, and no labor force would be added, <br />therefore, the additional parking is not necessary. <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.