My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-26-1987 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
08-26-1987 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/8/2014 12:48:54 PM
Creation date
5/7/2013 2:51:36 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
137
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 />Planning Commission <br />August 13, 1987 <br />stated that in such instances she was not comfortable in acting on <br />proposals. <br />Councilman Collova reported that he addressed this issue at a recent <br />Council meeting indicating that if a matter is routine and the <br />applicant is not present, then the Commission should act on the <br />application. <br />Sherman Oaks/ The Commission reviewed the Planner's Report dated August 11, 1487 <br />Brutger PUD regarding the Sherman Oaks /Brutger PUD Amendment. <br />Amendment <br />Gordie Kath, representing Brutger Companies, stated that if necessary <br />they are agreeable to the Planner's suggestion of shared driveways, <br />however, reported that there is the issue of maintenance of this <br />driveway which would have to be addressed with an agreement between <br />the property owners. <br />DeLonais asked if a residential use of this property was appropriate <br />under PUD zoning. <br />The Planner replied that any land use would be appropriate subject to <br />City approval. The Planner also noted that under the proposal for a <br />shared driveway, one driveway is eliminated onto Little Canada Road, <br />which is a collector street. <br />DeLonais asked if the apartment complex would have use of this driveway. <br />Kath replied that it would not. <br />DeLonais asked if there was adequate parking for the apartment complex <br />as it appears to him there is not. <br />The Planner replied that the parking exceeds the parking requirements <br />under the Ordinance. <br />Kath agreed that there was adequate parking, noting that the building <br />is 100% occupied. <br />Timmons stated that she could understand the Planner's reasoning for <br />a shared driveway, however, felt this was a problem in the future for <br />homeowners. There is not only the issue of who maintains the driveway, <br />but also problems with parking in the driveway if one of the homeowners <br />has a party. Timmons noted that there is no parking allowed on Little <br />Canada Road. Timmons noted that there would be no less traffic with a <br />shared driveway. Timmons agreed it was good to cut down the number of <br />curb cuts, but felt it would be better to have two driveways in this <br />instance. <br />The Planner agreed with Timmons from a real estate standpoint, but <br />thought the matter should be raised from a planning standpoint. <br />Page 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.