My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
9/8/1997
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1997
>
9/8/1997
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:10:19 PM
Creation date
6/17/2015 10:08:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
09/08/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
B®OK 10.-1-20 PAGE 477 <br />No bonding out for landscaping except for disasters or freeze. <br />Must meet minimum height standard on trees. <br />Under pruning section, allow an exception for diseased and injured trees. <br />Larger amount of interior green spaces - consider increasing planting island <br />size and less parking spaces. Have some flexibility in requiring one <br />tree per 30 linear feet. <br />Different spacing for different size trees. <br />Preference of walls over wooden fencing - consider alternative material for <br />fencing. <br />Define loading dock versus loading area. <br />Consider utility lines underground, where possible. <br />Consider berms around commercial and industrial buildings along roadways. <br />Training for Code Enforcement officers. <br />Consider giving out a brochure on maintenance of landscaping at time of C. O. <br />Chairman Eggert read Question #2 as follows <br />2. DOES THE BOARD AFFIRM STAFFS PRESENT LANDSCAPING RE- <br />INSPECTION POLICY? <br />Inspect plantings in 6 months instead of 10 months. <br />Commissioner Tippin gave reasons for his opinion that the landscape re -inspection <br />policy be changed to 6 months instead of 10 months. <br />Several spoke in favor of this change and Director Keating advised of on-going code <br />enforcement with respect to landscaping. <br />Chairman Eggert then read Question #3 as follows: <br />3. CONSIDERING AESTHETIC EXPECTATIONS, ROAD AND UTILITY DESIGN <br />CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES, AND INSTALLATION AND <br />MAINTENANCE COSTS, DOES THE BOARD APPROVE THE PROPOSED URBAN <br />AND RURAL LANDSCAPING SECTIONS AS GENERAL COUNTY GUIDELINES <br />FOR IMPROVING DESIGNATED CORRIDORS? <br />Director Boling briefly reviewed the backup regarding question #3. <br />Commissioner Ginn was concerned about the maintenance being done by the State <br />on SR -60, west of 661 Avenue. <br />A discussion ensued which included a suggestion to remember the need for <br />maintenance on the roadways when addressing the funding of Director Davis' Public Works <br />18 <br />September 8, 1997 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.