My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005.06.23 PC Minutes
Hugo
>
Community Development
>
Planning & Zoning
>
Planning Commission
>
Planning Minutes
>
2005 PC Minutes
>
2005.06.23 PC Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/2/2015 2:22:54 PM
Creation date
2/20/2015 11:48:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commissions
Meeting Date
6/23/2005
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.
/
3
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 — June 23, 2005 <br />Page 2 of 3 <br />Schumann opened the public hearing. <br />Jim Sirian, the applicant, explained that his house was built in 1999 and the property was the <br />former site of a nursery and contained an existing accessory building. The reason for a larger <br />building was to store his fifth wheel vehicle. He said the addition would be 6-8 feet taller that <br />the existing building and would have the same new exterior finish. Sirian said it would be done <br />by a reputable builder. <br />There were no other comments and Schumann closed the public hearing. <br />McRoberts made motion, Kleissler seconded, to recommend approval of the Conditional Use <br />Permit for 125% of the permitted accessory storage. <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br />Schwieters Properties Screening Plan <br />At the Commission meeting on May 12, 2005, the Commission considered a site plan for <br />Schwieters Properties for a 45,000 square foot accessory building on property located off Fenway <br />Boulevard in the Bald Eagle Industrial Park. The Commission recommended approval of the <br />site plan but required the applicant to return with an effective screening plan. The Commission <br />was concerned about the survival of most species of trees because of the wetlands and suggested <br />construction of a wall with some landscaping to break up the monotony. <br />The CDD explained that Schwieters were proposing to construct two 20 -foot walls with <br />landscaping behind Building #4 and additional landscaping behind the other buildings. Brenda <br />Kunkel had submitted a letter from Vernix Forestry Consultants that indicated the existing trees <br />would offer year around screening; however, some of the Colorado Spruce were infected with a <br />common needle fungus that would require treating. <br />Schumann opened the public hearing. <br />Kunkel apologized for not contacting Bryan earlier and went on to say that she had spoke to <br />another tree service company, Rainbow Tree Forester, and was told that the needle fungus on <br />Colorado Blue Spruces was hard to kill so she asked that the Commission approve Black Hills <br />Spruce or White Spruce. <br />McRoberts had concerns regarding drainage and was said he was hesitant to presume that the <br />spruce would survive. <br />Kunkel pointed out on the plan where the drainage from each building would go and explained <br />that the roof on building #4 sloped to the west towards the pond. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.