Laserfiche WebLink
...~. c~ <br />• Minutes of Planning and Zoning Commission <br />Sept. 5, 1985 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />John Armstrong and Chief Building Official David Paulissen. <br />Mr. Paulissen said that staff had looked long and hard at this <br />and basically our understanding is if the City wants it, put <br />it in the public sector and let them maintain it. <br />9. Item 40 - Parkway Corridor <br />Citizen comment indicates that the twenty (20) foot <br />setback on property adjacent to designated parkway <br />corridors is inappropriate. <br />This deals with parkway (example Fairmont Parkway). <br />Staff has looked at this in great lengths. We suggest <br />that the 20 foot setback adjacent to parkway corridors <br />remain in the ordinance. Please note that these <br />requirements only apply if said parkway corridors are <br />designated as such on the zoning map. Staff recommends <br />that perhaps Council should look at the proposed <br />designations and determine if all are needed and perhaps <br />consider the application of this requirement to new <br />• parkway corridors. <br />10. Item 41 - Parking and Curb Requirement; <br />r. Citizen input indicates that the term curb needs to be <br />defined to allow conventional curb stops as well as poured <br />curbing if desired. <br />Staff sees no conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and <br />would recommend that we include the allowance for curb <br />stops to be used here and we would write a definition that <br />would reflect that. <br />11. Item 42 - Additional Setback Ad1acent to Major <br />Thoroughfares• <br />Citizen input indicates that the requirement of an <br />additional five foot to ten foot setback of a structure <br />from a major thoroughfare should be deleted. <br />Chief Building Official David Paulissen recommended that <br />we adopt the citizens input here and recommend that those <br />additional setbacks adjacent to thoroughfares be deleted. <br /> <br />•- <br />