My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 10 07
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1986 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1986 10 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:57 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 2:32:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
10/7/1986
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1986 10 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
108
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
.. I <br /> • <br /> Section 17.21.040 shall apply to applications <br /> under this chapter, except for those requirements <br /> apecificslly waived in tbo planned wait develop- <br /> ment plan approved hereunder." Monever, the <br /> operating sections of the Ordinance only allow a <br /> waiver of lot sine. It is clear that the intent <br /> of the Ordinance was Vermeil waivers of all <br /> requirements of yard and bulk. <br /> 4 Wanush stated that frost and side yard setbacks <br /> have been dealt with through the POD, yet when you <br /> search for authority to actually grant that, staff <br /> could not find it, the intent was that the front <br /> and side yard setbacks could be waived by Council <br /> if innovative proposals were approved. <br /> Szymanski voiced concern over the need for this <br /> when standards have been set and should be <br /> maintained in the City's Boning laws. •*y <br /> changing this portion (of the Ordinance), I think <br /> all weave going to do is sake it easier to have <br /> smaller lots yet. There has to some flexibility <br /> under certain conditions. I think the lot size is <br /> all the flexibility that we need on this matter." <br /> Ilanush explained that this refers to the height <br /> and bulk and side yard limitations and waiving <br /> these requirements is being dote now. <br /> $symanski stated that a big concern of this <br /> Council has been densities. °what sense is there <br /> to our soning if we don't adhere to it? I see <br /> this as taking away from that notating law all the <br /> mare.' <br /> Mohr identified for example the smaller lots in <br /> parts of the McStain development wherein a lot of <br /> common and open space exists with trails and bike <br /> paths that rent into the formula before <br /> determining lot sixes. <br /> Wanush explained that subdivision requirements are <br /> vary clear. Yet in the POD process, the City can <br /> demand a higher level of quality than may be <br /> required through the normal subdivision process. <br /> You must meet the underlying zoning requirements <br /> through the subdivision process. The POD process <br /> allows variations by Council approval if an <br /> adequate trade-oft is proposed. Wanush feels that <br /> setbacks do not particularly affect density. <br /> Szymanski feels that this is taking away some <br /> minimum standard and there should be some design <br /> guidelines and minimum standards. Se opposes the <br /> change. <br /> 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.