My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1/30/1985
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1985
>
1/30/1985
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:51:11 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 10:06:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
JAN 3 0 1935 Boa 5F,t CE 703 <br />6) The easterly building will be moved 8' to the west to get as <br />far away from the condos as possible. <br />7) There will be language stipulating that there will be no more <br />than one 24 hour restaurant on the site. <br />Attorney Brandenburg continued that one of the main concerns <br />when the Board was considering the site plan was the traffic at <br />that intersection, but it has been determined that we cannot <br />improve the traffic there unless both Mr. Lyon's plan and the <br />north entrance of Vista Royale are merged into one joint <br />entrance. The people at Vista, however, are vehemently against <br />using that as a joint entrance; so, it seems there is no traffic <br />solution that would not, in the opinion of Vista Royale, nega- <br />tively impact them even worse than having it as originally <br />designed trafficwise. Attorney Brandenburg, therefore, <br />recommended that the Board approve the site plan based on the <br />above stipulations and settle the lawsuit. <br />Attorney Vocelle confirmed that Mr. Lyon has agreed to <br />everything that Attorney Brandenburg has proposed so far. <br />Mr. Luckett stated that he only had one request and that <br />related to the setback of the wall on the south property line. <br />He believed the purpose of the wall was for line of sight <br />clearance, and he, therefore, would like Mr. Lyon to agree to set <br />it back 201or 25' from the property line. <br />Mr. Lyon felt the purpose of the wall was to act as a buffer <br />between the condos and his site, and what Mr. Luckett is asking <br />them to do is close out the commercial establishment by putting a <br />wall in there. He stated that they are willing to put in a wall <br />as set out in the conditions, but not to go back another 20' or <br />301. He noted that the wall is costing them $15 to $20,000 now. <br />Commissioner Wodtke was concerned about the maintenance of <br />the wall with the plantings there - and wanted to know if they <br />will maintain the wall on both sides. Mr. Lyon confirmed that <br />they will. <br />Planning Director Keating informed the Board that the <br />Planning Department has discussed this conceptually, but has <br />8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.