HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963-05-28; Planning Commission; Minutes.' I
I I
1 I
I CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes of: 1 ', * '. '\ ', ', * I Date of Meeting: May 28, 1963 Time of Meeting: 7:30 I>. M. i N a me '*.\*$\ '*. '\**
PLace of Meeting: Council Chambers
I' I \\ 8,;s. '\\ I. * ' I
1 ** , ' . '\,'', I I \' . I * \, '. '\ \\ '\ '\
; of *$%' +??q$,.9'&* '8, *p, , :
Member -?*& &8' ............................................................... ""7""J
ROLL CALL was answered by Commissioners Davis,
Ward, Grant, Ewald, Jarvie and Sonneman. Also presen? ;*I,*;
1;:*:1
were City Attorney Stuart C. Wilson, Planning Tecbniciaq :;;:::
' Uhland B. Melton and Secretary Price. Commissioner : :&I:;;
Palmer was absent. 4 . I;;*lI lI,!l!
I I ;::;I' 1) 11 I I I :::;;;
111
t t i Davis 81 i:, :xi i i
I : Grant 'I ; :x: : : : : ;x! ; :
I I Sonneman :x: ;xi : :
I I ;I*;:! 0)
I I I I ;::::;
1 I ;:::;:
I ::;;;:
i APPROVAL OF MINUTES: i Ward 1 :x;%! : :
i (a) Minutes of the regular meeting of May 14, 1963, Ewald : were approved as corrected. : Jarvie 11 ; ; !x: I@ 1
: WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
: There were no written communications.
I
I'
I I@ I
I
I t ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: I I I !
I I : There were no oral communications from the audience.
I I STELLA MARIS ESTAT~S
; TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - IW$@H%SC i
I I I I : The Flanning Technician explained the Location of the I property of 2 114 acres.
* I I I I I I I I I I 4 The Secretary certified to the mailing of notices to :adjacent property owners of unsubdivided property and i
ithen read the recommendations from the various depart- ; : ments and agencies.
; Letter from Darield Shaffer , 3955 Highland Drive , asking i Ithat the back portion of her property be included in the ; I subdivision as the back portion of her property will rema? :useless if it is not included in the subdivision. I I
I I I I I I I
8 I * I
C. R. Tbornton Assistant Engineer, explained the locat& !of Mrs. Shaffer 's property on a "block study" that was maae ;by the Engineering Departmerk at an earlier date. He stated jthat he did not feel this proposed subdivision would have i :any adverse affect on the other property as a snorkel could: !come in and be worked out with other future subdivisions
:and explained how other properties could be served. The :
jShaffer property was the only one out of the two properties!
:affected by the subdivision that had adequate width for a : i panhandle. #
IDARIEL SMFFER stated that she objected to giving part i :of her frontage for a snorkel. As it is now she could come: jin and get a variance for a lot split. She stated that she dig :not want a snorkel on her property and is not concerned fod !the present time but is concerned with the future in about I
:ten years.
!The Planning Technician pointed out tbat the "panhandle" : !off of Highland would be in rever~e position for sewers. i
!There was discussion regarding Mrs. Shaffer or other i :property owners getting permiss$&n from the subdivider : knd the Council for the possibility of planning now to connett bith the sewer line in this subdivision.
:MRS. DORIS CHALMERS, 3812 Skyline Road, stated that $he people who have land locked property are grateful for ; ?he "panhandle policy" and questioned whether this policy : Fill continue to exist or if it would be taken away from %hem in the future with different personnel.
k'here was a discussion of the "panhandle" lot policy and i )hat the Commission felt it would be a permanent policy. ;
:
I 1 1
I I
I I I
I *
I I I
I I
I I 1
0 I
I * I I
8 I I
I I I
I I I
I b
\ I I I
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I t I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 t I I I I I 1 I I 1 I t I 1 I I I I I I I I I
The Secretary pres'ented proposed Resolution No. 300 I
incorporating the recommendations of the departments as J conditions for approving the tentative map. t I
The Chairman stated that he would like to compliment the subdivider for having underground utilities and a decoratite
wall. I I
Commissioner Ward questioned the 8" sewer line shown i
on the map.
The City Engineer, .Lowell A. Rathbun I stated that their I
recommendations reported that the Engineering Depart- ;
ment would allow a 6" sewer line as stipulated in their :
recommendation. t I
MRS. HLKES stated that she is applying €or this subdivi-i
sion and felt that eventualLy when the Shaffers and the t' Thompsons wish to develop the back of their properties I that they could work something out by connecting to a I I proposed street coming up from the Levine property to a i
much better advantage than going through her property. i
I t
I I
1 I I I I
I I
I :;;:;* -1
Resolution No. 300. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAd Davis I :x:%! i PLA~MMISSION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL Ward I i !X: ; : OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF STELLA MARIS ESTATES: Grant i :xi : : SUBDIVISION, was unanimously adopted. ; Ewald ; : :x: ; : Jarvie : :xi ; : TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - CHESTNUT HEIGHTS. i Sorrnemani i i 5 ; I illa@;
I ::tv:1 The PLanning Technician explained the location of the pro-: ;:+: posed subdivision comprised of 23 lots. All of the lots 1:::
will be larger than 10,000 sq. ft. There is a small house: ::;I:, ;;:$:: which will be removed and there is a high pressure water: ;:,:I; 11
line which will be relocated. The subdivider cannot receivt ::;:;, It:;
all of the improvemats that are necessary at this time so! 1::;;; will only develop a portion of this subdivision at the presetlt ::::I;
time. El Camino Real is proposed to be 104' in width and i :;:I;, ::;I:: there is no way to determine where the alignment wilL be. : :I::::
:!!I!:
I)
11
I
: The Secretary certified to the mailing of notices to i adjacent property owners of unsubdivided property, and i then read the reports of the various agencies and depart- ; ; ments. :
I !
I I I
I I Letter from Mrs. Doris Chalmers , 3812 Skyline Rd. , I asking the Commission to consider a sewer and utility easi- : ment that she has and that there is an error in the bounds* i line. She merely mentioned this for the map correction. :
i The Secretary pointed out that El Camino Real is in the : : County. I I
i DON HOLLY, 2499 State Street, stated that EL Camino i Real is not a part of the City at this time. The property : : line of the proposed subdivision is at the westerly line of i I El Camino Real, and they do not know where the realign- : : ment will be on El Camino Real. I I
: Cpmmissioner Sonneman questioned the improvements { i being waived on El Camino Real.
b 1
I I * I
I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I I I The City Engineer stated there is a good chance that when El Camino Real is realigned and improved it could be I I I acquired by exchanging property for improvements. He ; does not feel any improvements should be made at this : i time on EL Carnino Real.
DON HOLLY stated there is no problem of the sewer ease-!
I I 4 I I t
: ment as this will be worked out between the Chalmers and i the subdivider.
:
I I I I I I I I ! !
The Assistant Engineer explained that Mrs. Chalmers I
will have to get permission from the Council to be sewere?
by an easement. I I
DUN HCLLY stated that the subdivider would like to have i
estate size lots and would like to waive the sidewalks. i
It was pointed out that sidewalks are required in lots up I to 15,000 sq. ft. but are not required in lots 15 000 rq. :
ft. or over.
DON HOLLY requested a waiver of improvements of Chestnut Avenue since the lots along Chestnut will back I up to Chestnut, and have a screening . He explained that i the reasoxifor this is that they cannot have access on ; Chestnut and wish to keep this subdivision as private and I exclusive as possible. He pointed out that Pirates' Cove ; has double frontage lots.
The City Engineer stated that the subdivider has not
objected to his recommendations and the Subdivider does not wish access from Chestnut to each home because of : the traffic. The Engineering Department objected to wai& ing improvements on Shelter Cove because if the improve1
ments are waived the City has to expend their own funds :
for this purpose.
DON HOLLY stated they will put a wall in if they do not have to put in curb and gutters. I I
The City Engineer pointed out what his recommendations :
for improvements were and the part he recommended to i be waived.
There was a discussion about 'having a uniform improve -! ment with plantings or a wall. I I
MARVIN HUMPHREYS, Subdiaer, stated that they would! not permit more than one type of wall along Cheatnut and i would have uniformity. I I
The Secretary presented proposed Resolution No. 301 i incorporating the rchmmendations of the departments as!
conditions for approving the tentative map. * I
A motion was made that Resolution No. 301 be adopted
but amending Item 6 (a) to read Lots 18 21 and 22; and : eliminating the second sentence in Item I1 (c). i Davis : Ward Resolution No. 301, A RESCLUTICN OF THE CARLSBAQ Grant ?ZITTTI7XlTlRiMMI§SION RECOMMENDING APPROk .Ewald VAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF CHESTNUT HEIGHTS Jarvie SUBDIVISION, was unanimously adopted. : Sonnen
I 8
8 I
4 8 8 4 I 4 I
8 I 8 I I 8 8
I I I I I
I I I
I 8 I I
I
I I
I I
8
i PUBLIC HEARING; continued i RECLASSIFICATION from R-2 (Two-family Residential! : Zone) to R-3 (Multiple-family Residential Zone) on propeqty i on the Northerly and Southerly sides of Chinquapin, betweFn i Carlsbad Blvd. and Garfield Street more particularly desk ; cribed as Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Block I, Palisades, i i Map 1747 and Por. of Blk. W. Ealisades No. 2, Map : : 1803, in the City of Carlsbad; being 'Assessor's Parcels I i 13, 14 and 15, Book 206, Page 013 and Parcels 3 and 4, ; ; Book 206, Page 070 of the Assessor's Map of San Diego i i County. Applicants: Orville C. and Marie Cook Jeffers : : and Irene P. Duro .
i The Secretary read the notice of hearing and certified to I : the necessary publication of notice of hearing. The t I : Secretary then read the application.
I I I 1 b
I I I I i I I
b I I 1
I
I
I I
4
.. I
I I
I I I I
I ; '\ 8, .\ ' ', '\
'8 ', '\ '* ' ' I I I I
I I
I I I I ', 8, '88 "8 "\"8 I ',, 8, 1, ', '\ ''\ I
'\\ ".$, '*,,',.4 ; I i Name . ,@' , ;
I I ; of '.+$+, '. I Member *$'@..$$?' l.t\*\ dtq i :~""""""""""""""""""~"*-""--""""-"-"""""""~"""""""~"~ ""i""
I i::;:: i There was no correspondence on this matter. 1 ;1:::;
,:I I/:::
The Planning Tchnician pointed out the area to be rezone4 i:::;: ; on the map. I::,:
I ;::*:I
-4 -
',& .o , 9, -92%
I
I I I I I
I
I I I ! The Chairman asked that the applicant or his representa;
tive to speak.
DICK GEYER, Realtor, 755 Elm Avenue, Carlsbad,
I I 1 * I I I I stated that he represented the Jeffers and Mrs. Duro , anb i explained the location of the existing dwellings. He repotted : that he had contacted the San Diego Gas Sr Electric Go. , ;
and some of the other property owners and they have no i
objection to this change of zone. I
: No one present spoke in opposition to this request. 1 I
: The public hearing was closed at 9:3& P.M.
: The Flanning Technician explained that the reason he i requestea that this hearing be continued was to allow the i : Duros property to be included in this application. The ; I location of the property is desirable for R -3. The appli-i
! cant wished to have W -T zoning there and have a restaur-:
ant and motel, but since there is a moratorium on major : changes of zoning, he suggested 2-3 zoning on this property.
I I
I I I
I I
I I 4 I 1
I I I I I
1
I I I 1 I
1 I I I - I I * I
I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I t I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I 1
I l
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I Commissioner Grant asked about the feasibility of connecr-
ing Chinquapin to Carlsbad Blvd. I I I I
The Assistant Engineer explained that at the time they designed the sewer system and forced main, the Engineel
ing Department designed the street for connection with
Carlsbad Blvd., and at the time of construction proposed
to leave a pedestrian way open to Carlsbad Blvd. This
proposal was rejected by property owners affected and
the City Council and so did not change the location of the
lift station and so they left the lift station in the center of
the street. It is feasible that Chinquapin coutd be connec
to Carlsbad Blvd. , but it would require an extensive retaining wall, as well as relocating the pump station.
I I I d-
l I 1
(ed
I I I I I I
MR. GEYER stated that it would be costly and quite a i haizard to enter Carlsbad Blvd. from Chinquapin. 6 I
Upon being questioned, the Assistant Engineer stated tha{ there is no cul-de-sac there now and there is no right of ;
way for one. I t
A motion was made that this request for a zone change I
from R -2 to R -3 be recommended for approval and that :
the following facts exist: 1 I
I I
I I I
I I
1. That such reclassification will not be materially : ;i:Ga detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prop& - Ill:': 11;1
ty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the! ::;*:I
property is located. I I i:: :::
!I,!:!
::::I;
I I ,;;:I:
2. That it would be the best usage of the land and i would be compatible with surrounding property. I I I I 1 I I * 3. That such reclassification will not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. I I
I ! 4. That there were no objections from adjacent I ;;;;;;
I property owners.
Resolution No. 302. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAb Ward : : I ; MMISSION RECOMMENDING RECL&S Grant : i ;xi ; i IFICATION OF CERTAIN DESIGNATED FXOPEXTY IN i -Ewald i !x: ;
THE' CITY OF CARLSBAD FXCM R -2 TC 2-3, was ; Jarvie I : :x: ; :
nn;Cnimaa1.s1v adobted . i Sonnemah jxix: i
6 ;I (*I I I!:;!:
I I :;,:::
:;::I: Davis :x: < I
I
I k
I 1 I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I I I I
I I
I
1 I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I I I I I I I * I I I b I I I * a I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
PUBLIC WEARING: I I I I I VARIANCE - For reduction in side yard setbacks from I
10' to 5' on property located on the east side of Roosevelt ; Street between Laguna Avenue and Grand Avenue being i
Portion of Lot 42, Seaside Lands Map 1722, in the City ; of Carlsbad. Applicants: Joe M. and Joe P. Apodaca. I
The Secretary read the notice of hearing and certified to I the proper notification to property owners. The secretary then read the application.
I I
1 I I
I I I I 1
There were no written communications.
The Planning Technician explained the location of the property. * I
JOE P. APODACA, 951 Oak Ave. , applicant, stated that
the only way they can put 20 units in on this property is to:
have a reduction in side yard setback. They will have ;
adequate parking and intend to put in side walks and curbs;
ROBERT RGJAS, 2650 Roosevelt, inquired if there would!
be any fence separating their property and MR. APGDAC4 stated there will be a fence all around the lot.
MR. ROJAS stated that he is in favor of the application. i
No one spoke in opposition to this request.
The public hearing was closed at 9:53 P. M.
A motion was made to approve this request for a variance! for a reduction in side yard setback from 10' to 5' for the : following reasons: I I
1. That such variance is necessary for the preserva-i
tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed
by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which ; is denied to the property in question.
I I I
I I
I I
I I t I I
l a I 1 I I I I I I I I
I I
I I I I I I I 2. That the granting of such variance will not be
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious i
to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone!
in which the property is located. I I
3. That such variance will not adversely affect the
s
comprehensive general plan. I I I I I 4. That the property is conducive to this type of dev*op-
ment . * I I I
5. That the owner has agreed to dedicate to the City
the improvements of Roosevelt Street. I I I I I 6. That there was no opposition voiced at the hearing!
I The Secretary pointed out that a variance is only good for i one year and if they did not plan to build the second unit ; until later it should be specified. t I I I
Resolution No. 303. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBA4 Davis : !X: : ; ill;#;
~~~MMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE : Ward ; ' ; ;%i ; I I1
ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PCRTION OF LOT 42, i Grant :xi !x: i I
SEASIDE LANDS, MAP 1722, IN THE CITY OF GARLSBRD? Ewald : :xi : i
~ TO BE EFFECTIVE FUR THREE YEARS, was unanimously Jarvie : jX:X: '
~ adopted. ; Someman! : !x: * :;
I I 1,::;
::;,;I , 1 ;;,:I; I I SI:, I I I I ::::I:
I I 1;;*;1
I I I :;;:':
I I b I :::ii:
I I ::;;;:
k
I I I
I I
1
: !l..l!
1 PUBLIC HEARING: I' I i CONDITICNAL USE PERMIT - To consider an applica-: : tion to allow construction of a church building and off-str&t I parking on property lying easterly of Eureka E'lace betwe+ : Basswood Avenue and Chestnut Avenue, more particularly: i described as Lot 27, portion of Optimo Tract No. 2 Map I
21 51, and portion of Block 2 Mulls Addition, Map 514, in:
the City of Sarlsbad. Applicants: First Church of Christ5 : Scientist Carlsbad. I I
: Chairman Ewald stated that since he would abstain from I i voting, he would vacate the ''chair", and Vice-chairman i : Ward took over the ',chair". I I
: The Secretary read the notice of hearing and certified to i the proper notification to property owners. The Secretar$ : then read the application. I I
: Two letters in favor o€'this permit were from:
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I t 1 , I 1
I Mrs. Edward C. Yourell, 3390 Adams St, - Mrs. Hiroshi Ukegawa, 3357 Adams Street
I
I 8
8 I The Flannning Technician explained the location of the i i property. I I I TONY HOWARD JONES, 3985 Park Drive, stated that he f : owns one of the lots adjoining this property and is in €avo$" i of the proposed development. I I
I FLOYD ERRXS, 1251 Basswood, stated he is in favor of ! : the application.
! MYRTLE BROAM, stated that she represented the church! I and would be happy to answer any questions. Her propeq : adjoins this and she would be happy to have it there. I I
I I
I I
, 8
I I 1 I 8 I
I l
D I D l I I I I I 1 I I
No one else spoke.
I I : The public hearing was closed at 1O:lO P.M.
: The Planning Technician explained the drainage on the I property and the adequate parking for the seating capacity! : of the church. The subdrainage was discussed with the 8 Church's Engineer, Don Dresselhaus and the City Engine+ i and it would be taken care of. I I
: MRS. BROAM explained that the church is meeting at the i I present time in the Boy Saut Souse and that prior to that i : they met in Cceanside. 1 I
i A motion was made that this Conditional Use Permit be ; granted for the construction of a church and off-street i
I I
D I I 1
I I
1 8
parking subject to the following: 8
I I 8 1 I 8 D 1, No building permit shall be issued until proper I compaction and/or soil tests have been met as required i i by the Building Inspector and the City Engineer as a : result of subterranean drainage on subject property.
I I 8 I I I 1 I I I 8 8 I 1 I I t I I D 8 I 6 I D * I I
I I I
D
2. That existing dwelling shall be removed as indicatjd
on plot plan. I I 8 I
3. Proposed parking lot shall be improved so that a11 surface waters originating on subject property and all thag
may flow on to subject property shail be disposed down thb entrance and into Eureka Place satisfactory to the City i Engineer. I I 1 I I I 8 I I I I 1 * I L I I I 4
* I
,- e i 4. All setbacks are ample and planting of trees, grasb, : ground covering as indicated on plans will help to prevail: i the most restricted zoning district. Additional trees : which are not shown in and around the parking area are : i extremely important and are good safeg.uards for reducing : excessive noise and/or auto fumes; shall be included in : i the plans. I I
I I I I
I I AND that a conditional use permit shall be issued for
I 1. That it is an ideal location for a church. I
1 2. That the granting of this conditional use permit ;
: the applied property for the following reasons: # 9
I I I
I I I
f I
I 4
I I
f will not be unreasonably incompatible with type of use I ! permitted in the surrounding aea and zone. $
I 1 1 8 1 I I I 3. That the granting of such conditional use permit :
will be materially beneficial to the public welfare and wilj : not be unduly injurious to the property or improvements : in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.!
1 i
I not adversely affect the comprehensive general plan. I I
I
I 4. The granting of such conditiznal use permit will i
I I I
I I I :-;::
I 5. That the surrounding property owners were all in: :::I:: i favor of it. I I I ;!I::: :ll:
I Resolution No. 304. A RESOLUTION OF THE CARLSBAa ., ::;i::
: CMMISSION GRANTING A CONDITION+L :::;:;
::;#:I I USE PERMIT TO THE FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST, I :::;:: : SCIENTIST, CARLSBAD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION O$ ::;;:I
i A CHURCH BUILDING AND OFF-STREET FARKING, ; Davis !:h::
I ; jx: ; : : SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, ON PROPERTY i Grant : * :xi i i DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, PORTION OF OPTIMO TRACT : Wa.rd ;:
I ; :x: : : : NO. 2, MAP 2151, AND PORTION OF BLOCK 2, MULLS:. Jarvie !xi !x: i
.' : ADDITION, MAP 514, IN THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, wasi' Sonneman i :x;%; : I
.I adopted. : Ewald 8 ; : :x;
-I
l:;811
I
I I
.I
*I a :::;:I
P GI
.I ; The time limit on a conditional use permit was discussed I : and it was pointed out by the Secretary that there is no : i time limit on a conditional use permit but it can be revok+ : by the Council. 1
i OLD BUSINESS: I I
i (a) Street Lighting requirement by subdividers for new
i
* I I I
, I *
subdivisions. I , I I I ;li'l~ i KAY KALICKA, P. 0. Box 71, explained that there is : ,*l:t: : presently a subdivider's committee of the Council meetini '::;Il
every week and if this is laid over untit they have this wo*ed 1:: Ill i out, it will be saving time. I l:ll;l I 4 tdi!l!
I I ;I::;:
i:::::
9 I :Il$;
I,
I : The Secretary read a memorandum from the City Engineei,
i ments for new subdivisions. He explained that "A subdivit ; sion committee" representing the subdividers, private : i engineers, contractors, utility companies and City Staff ii : presently evaluating ordinances, policies and procedures i i regulating the processing of subdivisions. In addition, thd : committee has specifically assigned the task of reviewing i subdivision improvement requirements to a "Subdivision : : Improvement Committee". Upon receiving the report of i this subcommittee, the "Subdivision committee will form$- : late a recommendation which will be submitted to all locat: I subdividers, engineers, land surveyors * contractors, : utility companies and City Staff concerned with subdivisiorj : development for their comments or before suggestbg it is: : forwarded to the City Council for consideration. Street I i lighting would logically fall into the realm of the ordinance@ : policies and procedures being evaluated by this committee;
dated May 28, 1963, on the subject "Street Lighting requige-
I I
I , I I !
B I I I ;:;:;I
I +:I1 ;Il:
'I;:*;
I I i:;;;;
I ~l:~ll
I:':;:
I I ;:a:::
I I;:;;!
I : Davis +! pi i i
' k;;;
I : Ewald *;bi:: 11
1Ik;I:
! He recommended that the proposal be submitted. to them €&
study,and recommendation. I9
I
I I
I I i By common consent it was agreed that this be submitted td I* ; the committee for study and recommendation.
; NEW BUSINESS: I :;;I;#
i (a) Objectives and Policies, San Diego County Regional i Ward I :x& : :
I
I
9 I
Plan No. 6 re: Housing. i Grant ;:
A motion was made approving San Diego County Regional I Jarvie
$1 11
I
i Plan No. 6, re: Housing in the same manner as before. : Sonneman I : i : I
I 1 I!!!::
It
(b) Chairman Ewald requested that they have a discus; : sion of 5' side yard setbacks on the next agenda under Old
Business. I I I I I
I I Kay Kalicka, P. 0. Box 71, stated that tho way the Crdin3 : ance is written, it requires 10% of the frontage for each ;
interior yard setback and called attention to the toPograph$ : of the lots in Falcon Hi1 1 Unit No. 2, and requested that :
the Commission set a hearing on side yard setbacks with I : a 5' maximum and to be not less than 3'. He pointed out ;
ithe rigid conformance of FHA and that they only require a i : 3' setback.
; The Planning Technician stated that he did not have an !
opportunity to get the recommendations of other cities at i i this time.
i MR. KkLICKA stated that he had waited over 3 months to I
:get this map through and will be putting in a model in 3 i weeks. He pointed out that as an emptoyee of the author :
:of Ord. 9060. 90% of the things in the ordinance were don4
ion personal requests because of pressure of time in orde! ;to avoid delay, the public was promised that some of these; :things would be heard again.
:It was the general feeling of the Commission that this
:matter should be studied and not rushed into.
I I B I I *
I I I I I
I
B I D I I 1 I I
I 4
I t
I I I I I 1 I I I 1
I I i ;I;'ig i Chairman Ewald qs&ed thot -zsii& R-P, R-3, R-2, 7 -! 11':::
;:::I; i R -1 up to and including 15, OOU sq. ft. have a maximum of I ;;ll:l
: 5 feet sebacks and a minimum of 3 feet. 1;:::: ; Davis i i !xi : i
I : Ward ; ;x:%: ; '
!A motion was made that they study this and adopt a resolu3 Grant :x; {XI ; I ':
ition of intention at the next meeting for the above setbacks i Ewald ' : :x: i i i in the above mentioned zones, and that a public hearing be ; Jarvie 1 : ;xi ; i : scheduled for June 25, 1963. :: : Sonneman ; ; ;x; : ;
I IC.!:( I
!Commissioner Davis stated that he felt for a long time that4
jthe whole zoning ordinance needs revision and does not likd
:to see this done piece meat and realizes there is a study i :being made of the City. He wished to go on record that the: :whole zoning ordinance needs revision.
:There was discussion about when this study would be corn-!
ipleted, and the Flanning Technician stated the Daniel Mad, :Johnson and Mendenhall group is farther along than they
!thought as they are getting ready for land use study now. i
!by proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 10:52 P, Mi
I I I I I I
I I I I I I ~ADJCURNMENT:
I I i Respectfully submitted,
1
I t I I I I I I * I I
I B I