HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-24-1987 City Council MinutesTIME: Tuesday, March 24, 1987
PLAXI: Community Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue
T)L~: Committee of the Whole/Adjourned Regular Meeting
The meetln~ ~ called to order at 6:14 p.m.
Councilmembers Anderson, Clevenger, Peterson and l(ayor Ellava were present;
Councilmember Moyles .was absent. Pi~,,ing.C~-,-.issioners Burger~ Cuch, Pines,
Siegfried and Tucker were present; Commissioners Callans and Harris were
absent.
Staff members present: City Hn~nger Peacock, City Attorney .Toppe. 1, Pla~,ing
Director Haia, Associate Plmmer Youn~
Second tinit Ordinance - Consensus was not reached between the Council and
G--,,,issioo ~h~t changes to the treahn~nt of prz cxistin8 seceod units r~ to
be made.' Several Cummissioners felt that enforcement should be. s.tepped up., but
no consensus was reached ea that matter either. Cuuuuissioners did not agree
that reducing fees and rel-~ing zoning s~m~lards would make a(m-comp. liers come
in to get permits, but some of the members of the Council did. Council will
further deliberate no this matter at an upcoming.public hearlr~.
Desi~ Review Reform - The staff report and'the draft ordinmEe' were discussed
in ~'a~'~il' ~the following conclusions:
1. The Site lL-ndew C ...... xttee should be abolished.
2. There needs to be a clear definitien of what is meant by double co~mting.
3. New proposed height limits are ~atisfactory.
4. The concept of the slope penalty is acceptable, but may need technical
edjushr~ntS.
5. LOt size vsrsus home size - floor area ratio allowed for R-1-12,500, R-I-
15,000 and R-I-20,000 need to be reduced slightly as was done in the I~-1-
10,000 which was reduced from 3,500 sq. ft. to 3,200 sq. ft.
6. lipper limit cap. no house size in E-1 zones acceptable.
7. Propos. ed yard setbacks acceptable.
8. Setbacks of second story additions en existing units needs further study as
to whether they should be standards or ealy guidelines.
9. Scope of design review - staff to research last six months' activity and
compare '.3rapact of various proposals for ~issino venus staff review and
compare outcomes under new standards.
10. Toe subject of simplificatiea of variance findings to be more reflective of
State law ~mrdlr~, was discussed and will be ~mmined.
Use of Committee of the Whole Meetin s - Opinions varied on whether these
~1'~ be used to ~wi'~'~ p~~ there had been a public hearing un the
project. It was generally agreed that in some p~pes this might be advisable,
but only if a formal application had been filed and fees peid. It was to be
left up to staff to make the initial determination as to whether a project
should 8P to a Committee of the Whole prior to goln~_ to public hearin~ It was
also suggested that the department staff ~9~e notes of Commitee of the Whole
meetings and have them approvEd by the Cua,uissien just like regular minutes so
decisions made would be proper. ly recorded and acknowledged.
Es~shlishnmnt of General Polic7 un Second Sto[7 Additions - This matter will be
take se~ral actiem~ t~impro~ public awareness ~f 1~ ~ ~ ~ i~
~~lo~t (~ ~ - ~il disc~ ~ ~ ~i~ ~8
~al ir~ of ~ acti~ ~e~ ~18i~- in ~ter devil ~ ~ of
~ ~cil.
N~s~e A Strate ic Plan - ~cil ~gre~ .to have further letter sent to ~e
the ~tter ~ worked out ~itb ~l~8ne as a ~rt of the free~ay negotiation
~s, ~y p~d. ~i~ia f~ ~e fore of'~ f~way ~t s~
b~ the ~affic Authority should allo~ for the exclusi~ of 8 Saratoga Avenue
~~e ~ ~ ~ie~t ~i~ ~ ~ Stra~ic Ply.
~-~ ~f~s ~ ~ ~s f~ ~ 85 - ~ ~1 ~
as yet ~en receil~. ~e a~ matt~ ~b~~ ~tem for-g~er81
~ sti~ s ~j~ 8t 9:~ p.m.
,, . :. .