CC MIN 1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� � ' AGENDA (continued) ACTION TAKEN (continued) PUBLIC HEARIN6S (continued) PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Mr. Schroeter presented slides depicting present construction on E1 Camino Real and comnented concerning it. In response to questions, Mr. Schroeter advised that the ordinance proposes a five to ten foot setback depending upon the size of the property; that it applies only to new construction; that the sale of existing buildings would not affect „� the building's status with regard to setback requirements; that there are no new setback requirements for side and back yards; and that ,,,,,� the setbacks would apply to parking areas in the front of any newly constructed buildings. Pete Em e , Pacific Ready-Mix, E1 Camino Real, state t at while he favors beautification of E1 Camino Real, that the setback requirement might discourage new construction and encourage continued use of older buildings. He also stated that the setback is costly in that it prohibits full use of valuable land and that landscap9ng is expensive. Mr. Empey suggested that the proposed setback adds unnecessary government process. ' Sam Marenco, 207 Clarendon, Burlingame, owner of property at 757-763 E1 Camino Real, �oted that in some cases sidewalks have been narrowed and trees planted in front of buildings and that small businesses may need space for unloading. It was pointed out that the proposed §etback�oes not apply to any existing buildings. City Attorney Schricker advised that as a matter of zoning, an ordinance of this nature must act _ prospectively and does not require demolition of any existing structure. S encer Al1en, 650 E1 Camino Reat, Whitfield u ng, a vised he opposes the ordlnance, stating the improvements to E1 Camino Real have '"'�i already placed a restraint on business on that atreet. ' � �John Manning� 1447-45 E1 Camino Real, inquired a oub t the setback� and upon being advised that the setback for his property would be five feet, said he favors the ordinance. Mr. Manning stated that he would consider no setbacks very , unattractive. 1 Davies, 1101 E1 Camino Real, referred to ; ngs sent to business and property owners long E1 Camino Real relating to the proposed ; rdinance. Mr. Davies said that such required etbacks represent confiscation of property and � hat if a government agency desires landscaped etbacks, the agency shouTd reimburse the prop- rty owner for the full value of the land and ; ay for the landscap9ng. Mr. Davies advised � Reg.Mtg. 9/4/19 Page 2 � i ; ; i E � � ; � � s i i i } i � � i �