CCMIN111594 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pico asked how the PUD modification affects the double doors. If Council prohibits rear deliveries, does that deny the double doors? Mr. Swift indicated staff is requesting no double doors. Ms. Dennis believed the roadway was designed only for a public service easement or emergency access and not for deliveries. She was concerned for the neighbors and believed they have already had to accommodate deviations from the original plan. Ms. Mohr asked if the negotiations with the neighbors could also include ways of addressing the concerns about other businesses who are currently using the driveway. Mr. Swift indicated that some of the issues raised by the neighbors are clearly not allowed, such as the open door at the rear of California Burger. Staff will be in contact with those businesses with regard to code enforcement. With respect to other uses, the gates have been recently installed and that may curtail some of those uses. Ms. Mohr stated that the applicant had expressed willingness to work with the neighbors and Council has always encouraged that. She preferred to continue the matter to allow time for further negotiations and to address problems with other businesses. It was moved by Mr. Pico, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to approve the major modification pursuant to the staff recommendations. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Pico and Dennis NOES: Councilmember Mohr ABSENT: Councilmember Scribner and Mayor Tarver ABSTAIN: None (Because three affirmative votes are required for action, the matter was continued to the next meeting on December 6, 1994.) Ms. Mohr recommended having the applicant set up a meeting with the neighbors in order to come back with some kind of agreement. Mr. Levine requested a third party, either staff or Councilmember, to participate in the meetings. 11/15/94 - 8 -