City Council Minutes 1993 01 19 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Leach: Mayer: Leach: Right. We have doubts about the economics of this, but we think it's a good enough scheme that we can sell it. I understand the density issue here, RE maybe isn't completely applicable. I went through the zoning book and looked at RL zoning and what it required. For instance, RL requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet, and only one of the lots has anything over 50 feet lot width. There's no parking on the alleys, so that means anyone visiting the site would have to park on Pine Street. My understanding is that we don't have any firm rule on this, although, I would ask Council consider that we should. I don't think major collectives should have either driveways on them or on street parking. If a development is built, and this is true almost anywhere else I look in the City, that the we don't allow parking on major collectors or arterials. We certainly don't allow developments to do that and I think we should actively discourage it. I notice three of the eight lots don't meet the RL lot square footage minimums. I don't know how many of the lots have the 35% maximum lot coverage, but that doesn't meet the RL standards either. One other concern I have is, although we have a public alley on the east side, we are going to have a private alley on the south side and I think that is going to make maintenance more difficult and complaints to the City a lot more frequent. I like your design, but it seems to me that if we approve this in an RE zoned area, basically what we're saying is that we don't have any zoning standards anymore. I don't mind adjusting PUD standards, say if it's zoned RE we come down to RL and we look at that, but this doesn't even come close to meeting RL standards. I have a real concern about that. It's not suppose to meet RL or RE standards, it's a PUD. The idea is that you need the flexibility to 36