My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1994-02-23
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
1994
>
1994-02-23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2005 5:01:17 PM
Creation date
4/27/2011 11:03:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning
Document type
Minutes
Planning - Date
2/23/1994
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
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
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2-23-94 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 5 <br /> <br />bumpers. Eight foot wide over-head doors on the east side are not accessible by trucks. They <br />are accessible only by a five foot wide black top walk. The 24 foot side drive-way between the <br />proposed building and the fence is not wide enough for vehicles to park and maneuver in this <br />area. It would be better to move the fence northward by 20 feet or more and put the 19 parking <br />spaces inside the enclosure. He does not recommend approval of the application. <br /> <br />Mr. Solodar stated that if there was a one foot flood on a 30 acre site, the presence of a building <br />the proposed size would raise the flood level an additional inch. <br /> <br />Mr. Goldman stated that there is no transitional yard between the building and the multi-family <br />residences to the south. For a perimeter enclosure and screening perhaps U-Haul could look to <br />a berm or shrubbery. <br /> <br />The Vice Chairperson opened the public hearing and asked for testimony from the public. No <br />member of the public indicated a desire to be heard and the public hearing was closed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kahn stated that there should be a transitional yard between the building and the multi- <br />family residences to the south. There should be a landscaped buffer. <br /> <br />Mr. Safe stated that he accepted the hydraulic engineer's opinion concerning the floodplain. He <br />feels that this use is consistent with the commercial area along Olive. The building should be <br />repositioned and a berm going up to the base could be added. He would prefer to have the brick <br />along the south side of the building facing the multi-family residences rather than toward Olive. <br /> <br />Mr. Foxworth stated that he agrees with Mr. Goldman's concerns about the floodplains. There <br />should be more fencing. <br /> <br />Ms. Ratner stated that since the building is within a 100 year floodplain there should be a <br />condition that any flood damage be repaired or removed. <br /> <br />Mr. Kadane stated that no parking would be lost because currently trucks are not parked where <br />the building will be. The far east units will not need a loading area because they will be the <br />small units. The 25' wide space between the fence and the building is sufficient because the <br />space between most self-storage buildings is usually 20'. There will be full time security <br />provided by an employee inside the building. He will have to clarify the heating and cooling <br />details. If they are forced to move the building to the north, the steepness of the building will <br />be increased. <br /> <br />Ms. Ratner asked if there is any space behind the building. Mr. Kadane stated that there is 5' <br />because of the easement. <br /> <br />Mr. Solodar moved that the Plan Commission table the matter in order to give the applicant a <br /> <br />m-2-23.plc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.