My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2000 06 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2000 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2000 06 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:46 PM
Creation date
2/2/2004 10:59:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/20/2000
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2000 06 20
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />June 20, 2000 <br />Page 19. <br /> <br />the applicant could have access to her property through the alley at Griffith Street. There <br />was discussion relative to power lines and other obstruction within the alley, which might <br />prohibit entry. <br /> <br />Mayer commented that this is a very difficult issue to deal with. He stated that the issue <br />appears to be the level of risk versus the right of the applicant to access the public right- <br />of-way. He suggested that the PUD reflects there be no parking and that lighted signs be <br />turned off after 10:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Howard Pollock, 334 Lincoln Avenue, a member of the LFPD Board of Directors, <br />informed Council that the driveway was requested and constructed because there were <br />difficulties in getting the trucks through the alley. He emphasized the LFPD Board's <br />opposition to the proposal is for safety concerns. He stated that if the City brought the <br />street up to the standard width, the LFPD might reconsider. <br /> <br />Brown asked Mr. Pollock what changed the Board's mind on the 36' shared driveway <br />concept. Pollock stated that the applicant later reduced the 36' driveway concept to 29'. <br /> <br />Weber added that the Board reviewed the proposal when the driveway was to be <br />improved to 36', but when the proposal was reduced to 29', the Board reevaluated the <br />issues. A lot of the Board's concern centered on the south end of the driveway and the <br />drainage ditch. They are concerned that with a shared drive, there is a potential for <br />emergency vehicles to slide into the drainage ditch. <br /> <br />Howard asked Weber about the Board's position that the easement be brought up to a <br />standard street. Weber stated that a standard street, with curb and gutter, would be <br />treated like a street. <br /> <br />Howard asked Fickbohm if she would be willing to make improvements to create a 36' <br />street. Fickbohm stated that the cost of curb and gutter would be prohibitive. However, if <br />a street could be constructed of asphalt, with painted lines, she would be willing to do so. <br /> <br />Jim Tienken, Attorney for the Applicant, stated that the applicant is attempting to do what <br />is fair and just, to use a dedicated city easement. He stated that they are willing to do <br />whatever is reasonably requested. He noted that at the Planning Commission, it was <br />discussed that this station is only used at night and is not fully staffed during the day. He <br />stated that the driveway is public property and that they would like to see a reasonable <br />compromise. <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.