Laserfiche WebLink
<br />15:5972 <br /> <br />That the present Zone. R-3 regulations do not consider the size, shape <br />and distribution of the remaining lots in the City to be developed; <br />that said regulations are almost an exact duplication of the regulations <br />governing Zone R-l even though the density of use is much greater; that <br />the height regulations are too rigid; that special setbacks in some <br />cases consume too much of the usable lot area; that the lot area perjf~ily <br />requirement appears too low as does side yard requirements; that there <br />is no provision for open space; that open-parking is permitted in front <br />yards; that there is no provision governing the orientation of one <br />building to another; that there is pseudo underground parking not <br />truly subterranean. He also recommended that the Modification Committee, <br />which presently has authority under the existing Code to modify the 1 <br />wall, hedge and sign regulations, be enlarged to permit the Committee <br />to modify usable space requirements, length of building requirements, <br />parking stall size and apartment unit size. <br /> <br />Projections were then shown on the screen depicting the changes as <br />suggested by the Planning Commission as related to the existing <br />regulations. <br /> <br />Extensive discussion on the various recommendations ensued, the <br />individual Councilmen expressing their opinions and offering suggestions <br />as follows: <br /> <br />IN PART: <br /> <br />Councilman Reibold asked for a rational on the elevator requirement <br />and the Planning Director stated that in his opinion the occupancy <br />factor of high grade apartments would be more stable with elevator <br />service. The City Manager commented that some lending institutions <br />require elevators in apartment buildings two stories in height or <br />over and that some architects favor elevators. Councilman Butterworth <br />was of the opinion that whether a building has an elevator or not <br />is one of economics only and should be left to the discretion of the <br />builder, the lending institution and the renter; 'that elevators do not <br />affect the community. <br /> <br />Councilman Turner stated that in his op1n10n lots of 250 feet and over <br />in depth could be more economically developed with buildings over 160 <br />feet in length and the aesthetic value enhanced by breaks in the <br />building rather than the proposed requirement of a maximum of 160 feet <br />in length and a second building 15 feet distant. It was pointed out <br />that the intent of the proposed regulation was to break a long line <br />and does not preclude two less lengthy buildings on a deep lot. The <br />Chief Building Inspector explained the Building Code requirements <br />regarding fire walls, the maximum at which a building is required <br />to break and another building started, the required stairway breaks <br />in long hallways, etc. <br /> <br />Councilman Turner continued that he felt the regulations should reqUirel <br />the establishment of distance between buildings as an additional criter <br />to the side lines. It was stated that any exception to the suggested <br />side line could be handled by the Modification Committee. <br /> <br />Councilman Turner also touched upon the alley feature of fifty and sixty <br />foot lots and the joint use of driveways; also that he did not think <br />Zone R-3 should start with five units, suggesting that it start at three <br />units per lot. <br /> <br />Councilman Turner spoke at length regarding the square footage per <br />apartment unit and per lot per apartment unit, stating in part that in <br />his opinion 750 square feet is adequate for a one bedroom apartment <br />rather than the recommended 1000 square feet; that the 1000 square <br />feet should apply to apartments with two or more bedrooms; that the <br />regulation calling for 2000 square feet lot per apartment unit with <br /> <br />2. <br /> <br />4-25-63 <br />Adjourned <br />