HomeMy WebLinkAboutComments Miscellaneous 7/3/2007
Page 1 of 1
PAULY Linda
From: KWOCK Gregory
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11 18 AM
To: PAULY Linda
Cc: MCKENNEY Gary, JONES Jesse
Subject: SUB2007-00033 Launnet - Partition Review
Attachments: SUB2007 -00033 Trans DRC DOC
Linda,
Attached IS Transportation's findings and recommendations concerning the DRC2007-00040 Sullivan Site application
I also spoke with Gary M regarding the access Issue and whose standards apply
Basically, If the property IS within City boundanes, then the dnveway standards are City standards
If the roadway IS outside the city boundanes (as In thiS case), then the owning entity, In thiS case Lane Co , would have a stake
In the access Issue In these Instances, both Lane County's standards and the City's standards would both have to be met If
the applicant cannot meet standards, then It would be up to the oWning agency to grant a waiver or not In other words, the
applicant may need to go to Lane County for a waiver In the event that he could not meet the requirements for spacing thiS IS
something that only Lane County could grant I did not cite spacing needs or other requirements for Lane County's FacIlity
Permit In the Condition of Approval as I don't want the City to be Inadvertently placed In the position of having to know Lane Co
codes and when they do updates Perhaps you can add the Lane Co emall comments as an attachment?
And In case you were wondenng the City standards on spacing between dnveways IS dependant on Land Use type and
has dlffenng spacing needs based on the distance between the dnveway and the street and IS not based on dnveway spacing
between 2 local access dnveways )
Please let me know If you have any questions
Thank you,
Greg Kwock
X7134
7/1712007