|
<br />sign on a project or any change in the design, then contract would have to be rene-
<br />gotiated and change order made. Councilman McDonald offered congratulation~ on the
<br />close bids 'received, on this project. I '
<br />
<br />II - Consent Calendar
<br />Previously' discussed in committee meetings held April 25 (Present: Mayor Anderson;
<br />Councilmen 'Beal, Williams, Hershner, Campbell, Keller, Murray, and Wood), May 2, (Pre-
<br />sent :. Mayor Anderson ; Councilmen Beal, Williams, Hershner, Campbell,' Keller, Murray,
<br />and Wood), and May 9,1973 (Present: Mayor Anderson; Councilmen Beal', Williams, McDonald,
<br />Hershner, Campbell, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of those meetings appear below printed
<br />in italics.
<br />
<br />\.
<br />
<br />A. Proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance re: RP Zones "':-Copies of memo from the
<br />Planning Commission were previously distributed to Council members reaffirming
<br />the Commission's recommendation of February 6, 1973 with regard to amending uses
<br />permitted in RP zones. Council also received copies of the proposed amendment.
<br />
<br />Councilman Murray in clarification of his question about use of the term "light"
<br />in referring to professional uses in the RP zone explained that his concern was
<br />whether professional uses might occupy a major portion of a site in relation to
<br />the residential use. He said that in subsequent discussion with planners he was
<br />persuaded that the amendment contains provisions to take care of that concern and
<br />he is in favor of adopting the amendment as proposed.
<br />
<br />Councilman williams said his concern now is not so much with buffering residential
<br />areas from high density thoroughfares as with the restriction of uses permitted in
<br />an RP zone under the amendment. He felt it inconsistent to eliminate as outright
<br />uses barber and beauty shops and pharmacies, but permitting photographers' studios,
<br />real estate sales offices, etc. He said most uses in an RP eone should be condi-
<br />tional and on the basis of site review or planned development procedure to allow
<br />Planning Commission control of impact in terms of parking, site coverage, traffic
<br />generation, open space.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />James Pearson, Planning Commission president, said that although there was no
<br />provision in the proposed amendment which would provide a measure of apportionment
<br />between residential and professional use of a site, the Commission does feel it
<br />will allow more compatability between the two uses. With regard to uses permitted
<br />under the amendment, Mr. Pearson said it appeared to be a matter of judgment. He
<br />felt the amendment would make a workable zoning ordinance and enhance the general
<br />development of the City. He asked adoption of the amendment to give an opportunity
<br />to see what could be accomplished. Planning Director said that the planning work
<br />program will cover review of all residential zones. That review will bene,fi t from
<br />experience with this amendment which works out conflict between residential and
<br />professional uses.
<br />
<br />Mrs, Beal moved seconded by Mr. Murray to approve the proposed amendment.
<br />carried, all present voting aye except Mr. Williams voting no.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />Motion 4/25/73
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />B. Policy Statement re: Criteria for Approval of Minor Subdivision, Creating Panhandle
<br />Lots - Copies of proposed policy statement were previously furnished Council
<br />members. Planning commission (March 26, 1973) recommended its use in evaluating
<br />requests for panhandle minor subdivision to give some consistency to the decision
<br />making process in cases where better utilization of large single lots is desired.
<br />The criteria proposed were that: .
<br />
<br />/\
<br />,1. The resultant lots must be in character with existing lot sizes in the immediate
<br />area or located in a general area previously designated as appropriate for pan-
<br />handle lots by the Planning Commission. If not, similar minor subdivision must
<br />not conflict with applicable plans or place undue hardship on public f~cilities.
<br />~ ,
<br />
<br />2.' All parcels must have the minimum square footage required in the zoning -dTs-
<br />trict wherein located except that to assure adequate space between structures.,
<br />a condition of approval may be minimum lot sizes and setbacks in excess of
<br />those normally required in the zoning district wherein the proposed subdivision
<br />is to be located.
<br />
<br />.3~' Panhandles must be of sufficient width to provide safe, convenient, and effi-
<br />cient access to the dwellings served.
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />t- 4~,~ Each rear parcel must be able to accommodate at least four parking spaces'
<br />! " wi thout the necessi ty for backing out.
<br />!
<br />f' /
<br />~5~ The need for additional curb cuts must be minimized through the use of common
<br />driveways where possible.
<br />
<br />li~
<br />
<br />5/14/73
<br />
<br />4
<br />
|