My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
07-23-86 Council Minutes
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1986
>
07-23-86 Council Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/3/2009 2:27:23 PM
Creation date
7/31/2009 2:51:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
MINUTES <br />City Council <br />July 23, 1986 <br />Driveways The City Planner reported that under the City's current ordinance, <br />, back-up spots on driveways are not permitted. <br />Agenda <br />Item No. 20 Fahey stated that he could see these spots becoming extra <br />parking lots in the City. <br />Mr. Collova recently brought up the suggestion of requiring these <br />spots for the undeveloped lots along Edgerton due to the difficulty <br />of backing onto Edgerton. <br />Ms. Nardini pointed out that there are some circular driveways <br />on McMenemy which have been completely blacktopped. Nardini <br />pointed out that the City allows only one curb cut per single- <br />family lot. <br />The Planner agreed that only one curb cut is allowed per single- <br />family lot, no matter how wide the lot is. <br />Mr. Fahey suggested that the fact that circular driveways are <br />not allowed in the City be incorporated in the checklist that <br />the Building Inspector hands out at the time a building permit <br />is applied for. <br />It was the concenus of the Council that the Planner draw up an <br />ordinance amendment stating that back-up spots for driveways <br />are permitted and may be required by the City. This should then <br />be referred to the Planning Commission for their input and a <br />public hearing called to consider the amendment. <br />Mr. Fahey introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION N0. 86-7-340 - REFERRING TO <br />THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE <br />PERTAINING TO DRIVEWAYS AND REQUESTING THE <br />PLANNING COMMISSION'S INPUT, AND FURTHER SETTING <br />A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS ORDINANCE <br />AT THE AUGUST 27, 1986 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Mr. Blesener. <br />Ayes (5) Fahey, Blesener, Scalze, Collova, Nardini. <br />Nays (0). <br />Resolution declared adopted. <br />This resolution appears in Resolution Book No. 15, Page 398. <br />Accessory lhe Planner reported that when the Ordinance was amended, setbacks <br />Building for accessory buildings were eliminated from the ordinance. <br />Setbacks Under the standards currently in the ordinance, an accessory <br />building would have to maintain a 30 foot rearyard setback. <br />Agenda Sideyard setbacks are not a problem and 10 feet would have to <br />Item No. 21 be maintained from the sideyard to the accessory building. <br />Page -18- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.