My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005.04.28 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2005 PC Minutes
>
2005.04.28 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 2:22:06 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:47:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
4/28/2005
Document Type
Minutes
Commission Name
Planning
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
Planning Commission Minutes — April 28, 2005 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />Randy Nugent asked to be exempt from the curbing requirement. The Ordinance requires that <br />concrete curbing be installed. Nugent offered to construct asphalt curbing. <br />Schumann explained that curbing prevents encroachment and aides in water runoff. He felt that <br />could be accomplished with a lay -down curb or bump -up asphalt curb. He suggested asphalt <br />curbing in only certain areas. <br />Nugent said he was in the business of asphalt and would be sure to maintain asphalt curbing. <br />Rosenquist pointed out that the plan did not show the storage tank to be located in the exterior <br />storage area. He asked that a condition of approval be added that the applicant work with the <br />building inspector on the tank construction. He said he felt the building could be redesigned so a <br />variance was not necessary. <br />Hoffbeck said she felt the applicant had complied with their previous concerns and was not <br />worried that the applicant would not maintain the asphalt. <br />Weidt said he felt the applicant had made the changes to the plan that were requested and noted <br />that it was tough property to put a building on. <br />Bailly said she felt that either curbing would accomplish what it was intended to do and she was <br />okay with the project. <br />McRoberts said he could live with the setback variance, pointing out that no neighbors came <br />forward to oppose it. <br />Kleissler felt they made a good effort to make the requested changes and approved of the changes <br />to the ponding on the east end. Since asphalt was the applicant's business, she felt a bituminous <br />curbing would be appropriate and a condition could be added to the approval that the curbing be <br />maintained. <br />Schumann said they needed to consider what would happen if the building was sold to someone <br />else. He would be okay with lay -down curbing. <br />Rosenquist agreed with Schumann that lay -down curbing would still control the water. <br />Weidt made motion, McRoberts seconded, to approve the request with the conditions established <br />adding a variance for the bump -up curbing. <br />Ayes: Bailly, Hoffbeck, Kleissler, McRoberts, Schumann, Weidt <br />Nays: Rosenquist <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.