Laserfiche WebLink
January 8,1992 <br /> Allan Giffen, Planning, explained that the <br /> "long list" of <br /> amendments to the Zoning Cade is part of the City's first <br /> annual review of the Code andrecommendations have been <br /> received from bath public and staff. He further stated that <br /> staff'has r remanding <br /> ended r anding sections o "Preservation of <br /> Significant'eTrees" and "Merger of Conforming Lots by <br /> Construction" contained in Council Bill 9110-68 back to the <br /> Planning Commission. He further summarized that Councilman <br /> Moser had several c the definitions of "solid waste <br /> transfer station" and e substance abuse treatment clinic, <br /> offices"in CB 9110-66. <br /> Councilman Moser said that he also had concerns <br /> regarding the <br /> following: "transportation activities, including railroad <br /> yards, marine shipping, trade activities, related activities, <br /> excluding airports"1n CB 9110-67(his concern•being-railroad <br /> yards to be subject toam ore stringentr eview process) <br /> "accessory dwelling units" inCB 9110-67 (his concern beings- <br /> more s <br /> density these single family ); • <br /> • <br /> "Calculation of Permitted Density" in CB 9110-68 (his concern o <br /> being-clarification that credit given for dedication of land ', <br /> for transit facilities is given only to the site from which the <br /> land was dedicated; "allowing the use of tandem parking <br /> etas <br /> in multiple family developments in CB 9110-68 (his concern <br /> being - providing a maximum amount of parking that can <br /> placed in a tandem configuration) reduction of the" re <br /> ao <br /> s,in the B-1,B-2,B-2(8),c-1 and C-1H zones from 10' t <br /> 0'' w abutting an improved public alley" in 9110-67 (his <br /> mbeing -he wishes to keep the 10' setback when such <br /> ictal z adjacent to residential z and also add <br /> C-2 zone);and zones <br /> an e in the permitted height of <br /> building appurtenances to accommodate solaren ergy features <br /> into buildings" to CB 9110-68 (his nbeing - the <br /> potential for impacts to views). <br /> Allan Giffen'stetedonthat staff's position was to oppose <br /> remanding theections <br /> CB 9110-67 regarding "accessory <br /> dwelling units" and" transportation activities, including <br /> railroad yards" back to the Planning Commission as it would <br /> change their intent. <br /> Councilman Gipson suggested handling each of these as <br /> amendments rather than remanding them. <br /> Public comments were requested and Mr. William E. Boardman, <br /> owning a lot at 808 Crown Drive, responded with a <br /> concern <br /> regarding Environmentally Sensitive Areas. He was directed to <br /> talk to Mr.Ciffan after the meeting. No one else responded. <br /> 0 <br />