CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

291 Lenthy discussion and questioning held concerning Planning Staff and Fire Chief communications which indicated their concern for possible problems arising if on - street parking not adequate and fire protection problems resulting from row housing on water frontages . City Manager reported fire protection had been discussed thorolchly for whole of this area and that it was implied some type of water -oriented fire fight - ing equipment would be needed and that the interval break concepts between the dwell - ings would offer the opportunity for such equipment between the dwellings would offer the opportunity for such equipment to get through to the water , and although possibly a more difficult situation than fire fighting in single family areas , but no more difficult than other multi -housing areas . City Manager advised of the ample off -street parking being provided for each dwell - ing , with two -car garage and driveway accommodation for two additional cars all within the code requirements , but that on -street parking necessarily limited because of number of curb cuts . Fire Chief stated his communications had been submitted as evidence of his concerns as to additional costs which will be involved for fire fighting in this type of development requiring a mobile water -oriented type of equipment and additional person - ne ; his concurrence with Chief Building Official on use of asbestos in shingling roofs ; and his concern that parking problems might hinder fire fighting operations . Council discussed probable fire fighting equipment which might be needed for this whole project . Larence Brian , representing Swartz & Company , advised parking space for this development approximated 4-1/3 spaces per unit , being actually twice as much parking space than is required in duplex zoning , the zoning district most closely resembling the zoning for this development . Councilman Keckley felt comparison to parking for duplex zoning incorrect , as this now being studied for change and this parking provision much better . Councilman Henderson discused her reasons for feeling this matter should be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study of parking and fire fighting concepts and costs , so as to avoid problems arising at a later date . Chief Lodi advised he could recommend no solution but still felt more on - street parking should be provided , and recommended as much fire -protective construction as possible . Mr . Brian advised street had been widened to 36 ' instead of 324 ' and advised of the on - street parking across the street from the townhouses . Senior Planner advised of the lengthy consideration given parking space by the Planning Commission and since still an unknown quantity , felt if a problem arose in the future could perhaps be resolved through use of open space at ends of the development , Councilman Rosselli expressed his concern for parking questions raised , particularly so as to on - street for those visiting in this development , and felt unfortunate Council expected to act on this matter until more information available . Councilman Keckley stated his feeling that parking in the proposed development conformed to the ordinance requirements and therefore approval should not be delayed because of possible future parking problems . Acting Deputy Police Chief reported he had also revived this proposed development and stated his feeling that planning superior and would not create problems as to parking . George von Fleckenstein , representing Swartz & Company , advised of similar developments he had supervised in other areas and not ?4 24 $9