8/9/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rohani stated that on Page 49 we would just have to add that they would have to meet the requirements of RS -1, and Chairman Eggert felt that would be good. Monte Falls referred to Page 8, Item 4, regarding corner lots providing a front yard on each street frontage, but the buildable width not being reduced to less than 30 feet and commented that he felt we probably should state "or the minimum lot width minus two times the sideyard setbacks' so we don't have something that conflicts. He then referred to Page 18, which he believed has added improvements to RS -2 and RS -3 that they didn't have before in regard to bikeways, sidewalks, etc. Mr. Rohani explained that single family and multi family subdivisions have all those requirements, but this is on the frontage, not internal roads. Mr. Falls stressed that he would like to see it clarified that was not required for the interior streets in those districts. He asked if we need to show mining as a special permission use on Page 21, and Director Keating noted that is included under the Mining Ordinance as an exemption. Mr. Falls continued that Page 22 shows a setback in the RM -6 District of 251, and if a single family use occurred in that district, why wouldn't the Single Family setback of 20' apply. Director Keating explained that we are not differentiating regarding setbacks any more between single family and multi family use within the multi family district. Mr. Falls personally felt that would penalize someone bringing in a development with less density. He then referred to Page 28 Commercial Use areas and noted that he did not see language stating no industrial or manufacturing uses shall be allowed in a commercial district unless public sewer is available. ` Director Keating advised that will be in the new draft. Mr. Falls next referred to Page 60 4a. and wished to have a more specific definition of what "properly screened" means. AUG 0 9 61 1990