1978-12-13 PC Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Dacembar 13, 1978 Page 3 f 3. ~ ~ ~rI'1/fIY`9YpNY~ g~~~._ p_+rr,,,~ rnir rhnt in rpnair~grin~ a dt1[~l,ex ox aparttt,ent, ~an apartmeat would requira more parking. Sha ad~ed that ehe agreed with ~i Mr. IIeneon that the turneroun3e could very eaeily eurn into parking epacna, ~ 3he aleo added that the concreGe curbing would be very expeneive. Commieslon Member Burmeiseer pointed out that concrete curbing has been required o£ other devalopmente, and Chat they muet eet a etandsrd rsnd etay with it. Mr. Bensnn stat~d he did not Eae+l hie development would be like an apart- ment in that ~t would not have the abuse of cara hitting the curb all the tima, and that the curbing would actually be a border for the driveway. Commieeion DfembQr Pedor stated that he agreed it wae not an apartment bui.lding but that if ir., wae not coneidered an apartment bui~ding, it would not =1t on for that piece of property. Cn~nni~sion Member Burmeieter pointed out that they wexe r.aking :•uJ.es from different categories and not ataying with one categaxy. Nr. Naneon kitaCecl ther. it he had it to do all over again, he would go wiL•h a duplex zal•her than a triplex but that he lxae too much in it t~~.w to ewitch. Chairpereon Haake at+ked i.f ~arallel ~arking wae okay for an R-3 development. Official Roae replied that a 9~ x 22 atall ae presented moeta code and ,.~-~ that the builder must maintain the open epace requirement of 625', which i1a why the parking was planned that way. ~ ~, Commiseion Member. Glazex questionad whether the development would have to be considered multiple family aince it wae in R-3 zoning, MS (Blanchard-Haake) to recommend approvo of the aite nlan as presente~i with the delatiun bf the turnaroundo and with a variance for the two curb cuta eri.th the idea that there will be eome ordinance changea made. A development agreemenC wttll be entered 1nt~ containing concrete curbing, concrete eidewalk, tree plantings, an~3 a bond or escxow of $3,000. 2 ayee 4 iiays Gommission Member Quan asked if there wr+e uny~ way to pravent tha 22' from becoming a driveway. Of£iaial Rose repZled that the concrete curbing would prevent it. Mr. Benean asked why concrete aurbing waa being requl.red if it was not an ordinance. OE£icial Roee replie.d that for eame Cime the Counoil pondered tha quasti~n ot cuncrete curbing versus bicumi.nouo and ~hat Chzy 1~ave taken the poaition thaC in new development something be required tliat ie durable and laeting. HE added Chat concretz curbing ia ineurance that it will iaet. Councila:ember Baumgartner added that it hae bsen a pol~cy o£ the Council for a number of yeare to requ?.re concrete curbing for aiything over R-2 development. ~hairpereon Haaka polled the Coffiniseion Membere to find aut why they hucl ~.,~votod against the previous mott.on.