CC MIN 1956 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

a recommendation. The Clerk stated that Councilman Stout made this remark, however, further down in the minutes the record shows that Councilman Stout did make a recommendation. If it was the desire of the Council, they would delete this sentence from the minutes. Councilman Herkner stated that he believed that the minutes should show only statements that pertained to Council business and action. He objected to Councilman Weiss's.personal statement which appears on page 7 of the minutes of November 5th. This !P10 statement was personal and did not require action by the Council and as such he did not think this type of qy, matter should appear in the minutes. .This was followed by discussion with Councilman Weiss explaining his reasons for submitting his statements to the Council and why he thought they should be made a part of the minutes. The Mayor stated that he would set a study meeting to dicuss what the minutes should contain. The motion carried, Councilman Wiess's statement to be left in the minutes. JOE DE OLIVERA, 726. SAPPHIRE STREET, WAS PRESENTED THE COURTESY DRIVER OF THE WEEK AWARD BY THE JUNIOR CHAMBER OF �r C CUMERCE. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, PLANNING C MXISSION RFCOTMNDATION FOR APPROVAL OF L. 1. MELEYCO FOR A VARIANCE TO, ALLOW A 5' REAR SETBACK INSTEAD OF 15' (Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4.1 Block 1, Oakleigh Park). The Clerk read the letter submitted by the Traffic Committee wherein it was stated that it was their opinion that the only solution, particulary form a safety standpoint, is to allow the ingress and egress to this property on Nimitz Avenue. The Clerk also read the letter submitted by the Planning Commission which stated that they granted the variance subject to the following conditions: 1. That a retaining wall be constructed along the creek running alongside this property. 2. That the arechitecture of the building be approved by the Planning Commission prior to obtaining a building permit. 3. That no driveway access be allowed into Woodside Road. Miss Jane Logan, 363 Nimitz Street, wanted to know what constitued the hardship on this property. The City Attorney answered this question which was followed by discussion as to what, constiutes a hardship case and what hardships exist on this property at the present time. There was a very lengthy discussion in regard to the traffic problem at the intersection of Woodside Road and Nimitz, possible plans for the entrance and exists on Woodside Road, the Traffic Committee's investigation and how they arreived at their solution, and future widening of Valota Road. Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statement: As a general comment and without specific reference at this time to the merit of granting of the variance requested, I wish to make my sentiments of record as affects our present practice of handling this and other requests for variance. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission has frequently complained and indicated that too much of their time and effort is being directed to the consideration of items involving variances, use permits, etc. The facts are self evident the council is faced with exactly the same sort of situation - for example; approximately 25 to 30% of our time at our November 13th meeting was devoted to one single item of a variance, and then without reaching any conclusive decision. Tonight again we have a somewhat similar situation. That raises the question - what creates that sort of a situation? If we examine and analyze the problem we will find that while for that for all purposes and intens we have what we can reasonably say is a sound zoning ordinance, yet we are constantly changing that law by the granting of these exceptions - in other words we are aiding and abetting the break down of the zoning ordinance by permitting a too liberal use of its provisions for variances, which were in effect intended for application in most exceptional circumstances only. There is no question but that the prolification of these applications for variances is encouraged by our laxity in adhering to a law placed on the books to serve the best interests of all the people and to guide the development of the community in an orderly and progressive manner. As I understand the provisions of the ordinance, especially as it applies to the granting of variances, the council, after certain findings by the Board of Adjustments or the Planning commission, may grant variances if the council further finds that there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the application of the provisions of the ordinance to the specific property in question (Sec 20.1 Ordinance 600). I feel confident that it the foregoing provisions were equally, fearlessly and judiciously applied to one and all regardless of prestige and station in life, we would not be plagued with the problem. On the other had if the evidence warrants a conslusion that our zoning ordinance is not sound or in consonance with the aims and ideals for the governing of the development of our community, we should undertake a revision thereof to obviate the neessity of zoning each piece of property by the rule of constant exceptions.