Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� <br /> ,�. . <br /> ,������ : ��r,i�,�,� <br /> FRUM Dean Hough <br /> onre pecember 31, 1900 <br /> SU�JECT gO�CL'� AfT1bU�flf1C!-] - [�1.�� �i�� rr i�� <lr i vfr,� � l_� ��i i..� r� i;�asiuur,�r.�r: <br />� 7his is in response to Reid Shockey's rebuttal letter dated Uecember 22, 1980: <br /> I Item No. 1 notes that in the raising of sidewalks (and driveways), ambul��ces will <br /> "bottom oui". This can be reselved by slopinp, thc sidewalk away irom the street <br /> Iand cutting a 2-inch 2rough in asphalt to bypass storm ilows past the dri�-eway cut <br /> i to prevent thc strcet draining into the low basement. <br /> Their No. 2 conccrn is that sidewalk requiremenxs should be done when building <br /> plans are submitted for approval. As you noted, our condition requiring sidewalks <br /> r is actually notification at this time of what will be required later so that applicant <br /> is not surprised in the actual building plan review. <br />�, As Celia Strong noted to me, the City can, with legal authority, require prope�i� <br />; owners t� replace unsafe� cracked sideH•alks, but �ve o�ly require this when the <br />� property o�vner wants to ittiprove his property under discretionar}• �xrmits. <br />� <br /> Cancerning Item No. 3, this beinr a discretionary permit, we choose to exercise <br />� our discretion to reciuire replacement oi sidewallcs in the interest of the welfar�. <br /> �nd safety of pedcstrians. <br /> Jim Iles noted that under Ordinance /lG59-80 (N.C.U. f��r L;aker Ambulance) Subsection <br /> 3.3,{c), "adequate orovisions are made ior puolic improvements and pede�trian <br /> eirculation...". This may also b:: used. Also, the Ci.y's `tc�ff Rrp�rt, peFe 1, notes <br /> "Offiee spaces ��ill tx redesigned in existin� huildinf-r ..." ,�nc si:u a �I e;r c>:istin�; <br /> ouildin�; abuts 37'h St, C�r^_i..,a,�r.c- Sj5-7P me,•, I�e invc,k„�, <br /> pH:is <br /> cr. Cc1i:: ` . .,� <br /> ,�i��r. .�:it:-�j,� <br /> 1 <br /> � <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ��. � <br />