My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-28-1992 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
10-28-1992 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/8/2013 11:50:06 AM
Creation date
8/8/2013 11:46:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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 />OCTOBER 8, 1992 <br />Olson described the equipment which includes a chipper, <br />stumper, etc. Olson reported that many times equipment <br />is stored at the job site and would not return to the <br />business location. <br />Rudy asked the amount of buffering adjacent to the <br />equipment storage area. <br />Olson replied that they would clear a 40 by 60 or 70 <br />foot area for equipment storage. The rest of the <br />property will not be cleared. Parking would occur in <br />the driveway area which is quite large. There would be <br />no brush or stumps coming off the trucks onto the site. <br />There may be times that the trucks will come back <br />loaded, but the material will not be removed onto the <br />site. <br />Rudy stated that if the operation is as explained and <br />Precision Tree is a good neighbor, and meets the City's <br />requirements, he had no problem with the proposal. <br />Rudy stated that he felt some of the City's <br />requirements for the area were excessive, and Rudy <br />suggested that the City give some thought to these <br />requirements. Rudy felt that the City needed to give a <br />little on some of the requirements. <br />DeLonais suggested that the property owners should <br />address the Council as a group on these issues. <br />Garske pointed out that the area was ear - marked for <br />high- quality development. Garske stated that he <br />sympathizes with the property owners, and stated that <br />if the Brueggemann development was going strong, he <br />would not support the Precision Tree proposal. <br />However, it was his feeling that Precision Tree should <br />be approved since nothing is happening in the area. <br />Garske did indicate that he would like to see some <br />improvements to the site, basic improvements that would <br />improve the value of the property, such as paving, some <br />screening or fencing. Garske felt that the City should <br />let development occur in the area since there is <br />nothing happening with the Brueggemann development. <br />However, that development should not be a detriment to <br />the area, and should meet Code requirements. <br />Drabik asked if the property owners in the area know <br />the basic requirements for development in that area. <br />Rudy replied that they do for the most part, noting <br />that the property owners received this information from <br />the City. Rudy agreed that there must be some controls <br />and restrictions for the area, but perhaps these <br />controls and restrictions needed some minor changes so <br />Page 7 <br />Page 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.