My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1999 04 20
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1999 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1999 04 20
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:36:44 PM
Creation date
2/3/2004 10:50:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
4/20/1999
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E4
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1999 04 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
this Section, there is also a requirement for common/shared access drives, which identify <br />two standards. He read: "provide a minimum eight foot wide buffer strip along both sides <br />of the shared drive when no sidewalk is included and when a sidewalk is included, <br />provide a minimum twelve foot wide buffer strip along both sides." <br /> <br />Davidson asked for clarification that this is a shared access drive with no sidewalk <br />included. <br /> <br />Wood replied, yes. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Light for clarification that the minimum with no sidewalk is eight feet. <br /> <br />Light replied, yes. <br /> <br />Davidson asked Wood to review what is contained along the drive-through. <br /> <br />Wood replied that there is a twelve foot access easement, an eight foot wide landscape <br />buffer, and a twelve foot wide drive lane coming around from the north to the east that <br />will queue cars up adjacent to the bank building. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that the eight-foot landscape buffer does not run the entire length of the <br />property. <br /> <br />Wood agreed. <br /> <br />Davidson questioned whether it is in compliance with the Commercial Development <br />Design Standards & Guidelines. <br /> <br />Wood replied that the six-foot minimum was approved as part of an overall PUD plan for <br />Parcel H; therefore the eight-foot minimum does not apply. He explained that when the <br />Outback Steakhouse was approved, they were required to provide berming and <br />landscaping to screen the rear service area on Lot 6B. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that when the Outback Steakhouse was approved, there was no discussion <br />regarding drive-through facilities. <br /> <br />Wood replied that there was no understanding that there would be any drive-through <br />facilities. <br /> <br />Mayer suggested that additional screening should be required, given the fact that there is <br />a drive-through facility at this location. He asked for the number of cars that could be <br />accommodated before beginning to back up into the single drive lane. <br /> <br />Haisfield replied approximately twelve cars. <br /> <br />Mayer questioned whether this meets the minimum requirements for stacking distance. <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.