CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

PUBLIC HEARING , Resolution of Intention of the Planning Commission to amend Ordinance No . 1130 , the Zoning Ordinance , in the following respects : Sections 4 . 4 and 5 . 4 , relat - ing to " conditional uses " ; and Sections 6 . 7 , 7 . 7 , 8 . 7 , 9 . 7 , and 10 . 7 , relating to " lot width " declared open and affidavit of publication ordered filed . Report of Planning Commission read in which it was stated that after a public hearing , Com- mission had voted unanimously to recommend the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance . Staff report read in which specific wording of proposed amendments stated and thereafter explained by the Planning Director as to the restrictive intent from charts detailing how present ordinance would allow a higher density on panhandle lots . He advised how study on this proposal had been from outgrowth of Planning Commission ' s concerns for these awkward lots requiring exceptions to permit narrow access easements back to another dwelling . He advised how recent cases for con - sideration by Planning Commission , however , had been in duplex zoned districts , not single residential , which had caused unusual concern because these panhandle lot sizes had been large enough to accomodate triplexes , and thereafter demonstrated on chart in Oakwood area how this would tremendously increase the density and cause other serious problems . He stated this was reason Planning Commission urgently recommended the proposed amendment under consideration which would recognize the legitimacy of panhandle lots , but would avoid compounding the problem by not allow - ing duplexes or tri -}ilexes for such lots . Council questioned number of this type of lots that might be involved and were advised actual count not known but that potential could be immense . In answer to other Council questions as to width restrictions of access to rear of panhandle lots , Planning Director advised other part of proposed amendment called for limit- ing the development of lots with less than 50 ' street frontage to single family dwellings , and explained the contradictions between Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance . If the proposed amendment is approved , both Subdivision regulations and Zoning Ordinance would require 50 ' frontage for a duplex , but would still allow consideration of exceptions to have as little as 35 ' on a street , if the average lot width is standard , and would apply to " pie " shape lots on cul -de - sac bulbs . , In reply to Mayor Bury ' s concerns that amendment might compound other problems , es - pecially in older residential areas , Planning Director felt this means would bring such shaped lots into a uniform manageable realm to limit to single family dwellings instead of creating greater densities . In reply to question whether this proposed amendment might be considered a punitive measure for this type lots , Planning Director stated it was possible that on the surface this might seem apparent , but advised it was being noted that banks wouldn ' t lend financing on overdeveloped land which tends to reduce density . Planning Director assured Council proposed amend - ment would still allow for variance or exception procedures . A property owner from Roble Avenue expressed concern for increased density with the narrow streets in the area . Planning Director stated while zoning did not directly affect street widths , allowing high density as presently allowable under the Ordinance on narrow streets would in- crease problems , whereas proposed amendment would restrict such overdevelopment , vav r2Q.69