05/28/69 - Laserfiche WebLink

Upon motion of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Commissioner Antonini, and carried, the following resolution was adopted unanimously. HESOLDTIOH H0. 903 WBEREAS, the application of D & V Builders, Inc., for an amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 520 to rezone from an A (Agricultural) District to a RM-1500 (Multiple Family) District that property described as Parcel 2 of Assessor's lisp Book 946, Block 3265, containing approzi.mately 3.34 acres, or that parcel coffionly known as lying immediately north of the EL Bancho Motel on the west side of Santa Rita Road, ha• came before this Commission, HOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that RZ-69-2, be continued indefinitely at the request of the applicant, pending final zoning for the area encompassed by Annexation 49. b. Article 2. Sec. 2.102a Application of the Planning Commission for an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Ho. 520 regarding Sec. 2.102a, regarding front yard setbacks. The modification being requested is to clarify the definition that concerns the front yard setbacks and the wording that is shown ender Sec. 2.102a. There is a conflict and this was first brought to the attention of the Planning Department by Mr. Ted Fairfield of MacKay & Samps. Mr. Castro demonstrated oa the blackboard the points of controversy. Mr. Jack Bostedt, representing MacKay ~ Somps, also offered several reasons why they felt that the front yard setback should have more flexibility than the 23 ft. as specified by the Ordinance. A considerably lengthy discussion ensued. Commissioner Garrigan felt that perhaps the dwelling could be located closer than 23 ft. if the garage is located beyond the 23 ft. setback and perpendicular to the street. Mr. Dudley Frost was questioned by the Chairman ae to how many homes D ~ V Builders construct with the 90-degree or Hollywood driveway. The reply was that the nuober was extremely mall, around lx or 2R. Mr. Proat also felt it was a good thing that the Commissioners were re-examining this important item, as builders feel the rigid 23 ft. setback tends to create monotony in a tract and is sometimes quite umgieldy to work with for engineers planning a development. Chairman Plato made the comment that at the time this item came up for review, the opiniousof planning consultants were received, which recammeaded a 25 ft. front yard setback even when the 90-degree driveway was employed. On that premise, the frnnt yard setback was established at 23 ft. However, Commissioner Garrigan felt that a variation should be allowed for greater flexibility. Commissioner Garrigan felt a front yard setback of 20 ft. would be very workable. The City Attorney then interjected a suggestion that perhaps he could draft up as amendment and resubmit it to the Co®isaion at the next meeting for their further consideration. The Commissioners felt this was a good idea. Upon motion of Co®issioner Garrigan, seconded by C~issioner Antonini, and carried, the Public Hearing was continued. Upon motion of Commissioner Garrigan, seconded by Commissioner Gibbs, and carried, the following resolution was adopted unanimously. - 2 -