My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 04 25
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
1994-1999 Planning Commission
>
1995 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 1995 04 25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/15/2021 12:32:36 PM
Creation date
7/15/2021 12:11:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
A. Peter Kernkamp - I don't think so. I don't see a reason that staff would object to <br />that. Certainly, for outdoor storage, it will more completely screen stored items. <br />It would need to be constructed so that it could withstand the wind loads. <br />Q. Is the 35 employees with or without the expansion. <br />A. That is with the expansion. <br />Q. To Staff - With the 35 employees, and other visitors is, the parking in excess, <br />particularly the spaces that are going to pond? <br />A. Peter Kernkamp - There are two ways to look at. The 1:600 overall ratio is <br />something that we would want to make sure is available. I don't think staff would <br />have any objections to phasing the parking in some way that would not necessarily <br />require all of it to be constructed at this time. <br />Q. So could we have some more landscaping in the location of the spaces that are <br />shown for pending? <br />A. Certainly that is not a problem. Those particular spaces are the ones that are <br />farthest away from the door, so they would not be used. I don't see any problem <br />as putting them in as future parking. We will just switch that area over to <br />landscaping. <br />Q. To Staff - On the two side drive ways, has public safety signed off on fire truck <br />maneuverability? <br />A. I will double check to make sure what the comment was. I don't believe we had <br />any negative comment from the fire department. <br />Chairperson Boulet - As a matter of housekeeping. Commissioner Puryear was not here when <br />we opened the public hearing at the prior meeting and so he has not disclosed a site visit and <br />any other disclosures. <br />Commissioner Puryear - I am familiar with the site, I have had a site visit and I have no <br />conflicts. <br />Staff Summary and Recommendation - Paul Wood gave the staff summary. Staff recommends <br />approval of Resolution of # 14, Series 1995. I think it would be helpful to have full <br />elevations, including the expansion area, provided when this goes to Council. I would request <br />that be incorporated into the motion. <br />Applicant's Summary - Terry O'Connor, We are in agreement with staff comments and hope <br />that the issue of the eight foot fence is entered into the approval. <br />Public Hearing Closed Commission Discussion/Motion <br />Commissioner VanNostrand - In lieu of comments I have drafted a couple of extra conditions <br />for the resolution. An added 6 would be "The location of any proposed roof top mechanical <br />units shall be shown on the Final PUD submittal". 7 - "The Final PUD shall clearly label <br />light fixtures and provide typical elevations and specifications". 8 - " The Final PUD shall <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.