Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />:ZISQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: 2/29/88 <br />9 <br />ITEM NOV a E- <br />0 <br />Department Approval., Manager Reviewed: Agenda Section: <br />Reports and Recommendations <br />Item Description.* Proploisled amendment of' Sections 82,080 and 12.05 <br />concerning driveway widths and variances <br />I I I a,sik,ed concerning the method they used to process <br />Similar questions were <br />IP <br />variances.1 In the case of those who had regulations for width, 13 of <br />the 1,51 indicated, that they had some form of variance available, nine <br />indicated that the process was done through the staff,, three through <br />'t*zen's board. None of them <br />the Planning Commission, and one by, a ci I <br />went d 14r,eictl,y to the, council, <br />0 0 <br />Din scussilions were held, w with the city planner and the city I s planning <br />I # Is 15 <br />sta,f f to get additional, input on the 'matter. Varying viewpoints existe-f <br />a <br />and - 'it was, not p�o�ssible to get a consensus as to the best single width <br />or method of handlinq the standards. It was agreed by all, however, <br />