AgdaPkt 2004-03-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8. Q- �8 Principal Planner Jany said it depends on the neighborhood and zone. He said some neighborhoods havP a very strong non-conformance with respect to parking (e.g., Orchard, Vera, etc.), �vhereas the Edgewood Neighborhood has plenty of parking. Commissioner Claire said all of V�loodside Plaza, Mt. Carmel neighborhood, Friendly Acres neighborhood, just to mention a few, are all non-conforming parking areas. He said he estimated 65% in 1969 (when this issued first came up), would have been non- conforming. He said now he sees approximately 60% of the old neighborhood with non- conforming parking. M/S: (Seybert/Radcliffe) to make findings that the proposed modifications conform to the General Plan, and are in the public interest, with the deletion of Items "e" and "f". Assistant City Attorney asked if the motion included the changes to Section 33.8 to add the work "consecutive" to the language? M/S: (Seybert/Radcliffe) to amend his motion to include the addition of the word "consecutive". Chair Paulson asked if looking at the motion on the table (deleting "e" and "f'), does Proposed Revised Amendment No. 3(as outlined in Staff Report) sufficiently covers "e", or do you want No. 3 to include something to the effect of enlargement and/or reconfiguration? Commissioner Clair said he understands Item "d" to mean a"maximum" of 200 square feet. Commissioner Paulson said Item "d" could be amended to read, "... total net enlargement will not exceed 200 square feet (gross), over the life of the orooertv" (taking language from Item "P' and adding it to Item "d". Principal Planner Passanisi said it was also important to know that every time property owners add to footage, they have to conform to the zoning requirements. Senior Planner Ekas said if Amendment No. 7 could be revised to specify a cap of 2,200 square feet, then there need not be any concern about Item "f' at all. Commissioner Claire said there is no cap in his opinion. He said an owner of a 2,300 square foot home with a one-car garage, would not be allowed to add a master bath, if there was a cap. He said the key is, we're really after, will there be more bedrooms that will cause more parking problems. Principal Planner Jany said that a specification on the "living area" as opposed to the "garage" would be warranted, and asked Assistant City Attorney Brower for some phraseology to that affect. Assistant City Attorney Brower said this was not the appropriate place to start reworking provisions that might have other implications to the Code. He said the changes the Page 4 of 7