City Council Minutes
4/23/2008 11:04:26 AM
4/10/2008 9:57:52 PM
CC - Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
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).
View plain text
<br />,~ <br />1~ <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />:4641 <br /> <br />The City Attorney then outlined the events leading up to the adoption <br />of Ordinance No. 990, summarizing as follows, Originally additional <br />dwellings up to three were permitted in Zone R-l predicated upon the <br />availability of so many square feet of land on a given parcel. Over the <br />years amendments gradually restricted the right to build additional <br />dwellings, such as restrictions as to location, size and shape of <br />dwelling site; preservation of open areas for future streets or alleys <br />where they had been approved as to 'location but where no formal proceed- <br />ings had been taken for their construction. Finally Ordinance No. 990 <br />was an absolute prohibition against the construction of more than one <br />single family residence on any R-l lot regardless of size unless 60% of <br />a block was already developed with additional dwellings, the only relief <br />being by way of variance. <br /> <br />He added that in order to avoid a multiplici,ty of variance proceedings, <br />the Planning Commission recommended that a new zone be created to take <br />care of the larger lots; that in his opinion this would accomplish <br />nothing chat a policy decision would not accomplish, and he had <br />suggested that the Council es tabl ish the criteria to govern the <br />,construction of additional dwellings on R-l lots and then write such <br />criteria in the R-l zoning provisions. That tonight's hearing is the <br />culmination of the foregoing. <br /> <br />Councilman Balser then moved that his motion to close the hearing <br />previously made now be in effect. Councilman Phillips seconded the <br />motion and it was carri,ed unani.mously" <br /> <br />In e general discussion that ensued, Councilman Balser agreed with the <br />proposed amendment except th~t he suggested allowing a third house if <br />the total area is 30,000 square feet or more, and requiring the third <br />house to have the same spacing as outlined for the second house. <br /> <br />Councilman Camphouse felt that the ordinance should not be adapted to <br />fit the needs of just a few but should be for the benefit of the <br />majority and' Councilman Phill ips feared that amending the ordinance <br />might create a "Pandora's Box". He also stated that should the amendment <br />go into effect, the hardship cases involved should include only those <br />occuring between the dates of June 2, 1949 and the day the amendment <br />becomes a la\\l'" <br /> <br />Mayor Reibold stated in part that he would accept the Planning Commission <br />recommendation as is because it is a compromise" Tha~ the variance <br />procedure will still be available to any person owning property that <br />does not fit within any criteria that Council finally determines. <br /> <br />The City Attorney cautioned that in connection with oversized remnants <br />resulting from future subdivisions, that if the Council does not make <br />their criteria applicable to future remnants resulting from such sub- <br />divisions, the Council will in a sense have commItted themselves to <br />granting to such remnant holders the Same type of relief by variance <br />that the Council now contemplates as to existing situations since it will <br />be the Council's action that will result in the oversize remnants. <br /> <br />Councilman Balser then moved that the Council accept the recommendation <br />of the Planning Commission except that added to such recommendation <br />be the proviso that a third house be allowed if the area is 30,000 <br />square feet or more and that the third house be situated as outlined <br />for the second house. Councilman Jacobi seconded the motion and it was <br />carried on roll call vote as follows: <br /> <br />AYES, CouncIlmen Bal ser, Jacobi, Reibold <br />NOES: Councilmen Camphouse, Phillips <br />ABSENT: None <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />6-2-59 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.