11/02/1964 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

OTHER BUSINESS: Ordinance No. 99 Cont'd.: The Council expressed the desire to hear from the Planning Commission their recommendations for possible modifications to the Ordinance. ACTION: That the Planning Commission is requested to develop and recommend to the Council a form of variance to be applied to Ordinance No. 99 in the case where (a) A subdivision map exists, which has been prepared in accordance with the State Map Act and current standards, where (b) Building site presented is proven to be as actually shown on the map, and where (c) Creditable markers of the corners that affect the setback requirements for building have been located, That a variance might be granted waiving the re- quirements for resurvey of tha land and resubmittal of a map. MOTION: Bowler; SECOND: Fowls; VOTE: Passed unanimously. 2) The Planning Commission questioned - If, at the time of subdivision, a full set of improvements in accord- ance with present requirements were made (pavement, paths, etc.), then ten years elapse and the pavement is cracked, is the applicant for building site approval legally held for improvements. It was discussed that improvements can be required. 3) The Planning Commission referred to Section 2, Excepti ;ns, Par. (b) of Ordinance No. 99 and questioned that if building site approval were granted and the owner did not build within two years, would he be required to apply for building site approval again. The City Attorney explained this was the intent of the ordinance, and the owner must go through the procedure and resurvey. However, it would be a very simple matter for an engineer to find his own points and resurvey his own map. Possibly a waiver on a two year term would be in order if there was sufficient reason. Councilman Bowler said he was not against this Section, but. 1 felt it deserved modification. -4-