Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/29/1946470 On motiop of .Clyde T.. O'Nan, seconded by G.�'J.Baker, the me eting adjourned. Approved this 6 day of City Clerk SPECIAL CALLED MEETING City Hall, Mondapi; April 29, 1946 - 7:30 P. Ve A Special called meeting of the City.Council of the City of San Luis.Obispo was held at the City Hall on April 29th at 7:30 P.M. Mayor Ralph C. Kennedy presiding. Present: G.W.Baker,F.L.Gist, Ralph C.Kennedy, R.P. Howell; Clyde T. O'Nan Absent: None This meeting was called for the purpose of considering the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance for the regulation of future buildings within the limits of the city and acting upon such other business as may properly come befire the meeting. The meeting adjourned, due to the large crowd and unsafe condition of the City Hall, to the Presbyterian Educational Building to continue.the meeting. The following matters were presented and read to the Council for their con- sideration: Protest ; presented by Mrs. H. L. Bishop stating " You have us zoned as Duplex ". we would like to be put.in multiple. How do I go about it? As you can see by the drawing it is very large property , also a very large dwelling ". '1his property is located at the corner of Upham and Garden Streets. Communication from Mrs. Eva A.Carpenter together with cony of protest which was presented to the Planning Commission on the 29th day of March, 1946; Communication from E. L. O'Reilly protesting the classification of his property on Monte St. to be'reclassified as "General Business" property. Protest from"N,16Cherry Re: classification of his property on Monterey St. Petition presented by N. W. Vandem et al Re: zoning distribt comprising from the R.R. tracks to Breck St., both sides of Breck St. to Johnson, both sides of Fixlini to Lizzie, and both sides of Lizzie to Johnson, desire to have this section zoned as a multiple family zone. The Notice-of the Hearing before the City Council on recommendation of the City Planning Commission that the City adopt the Master Plan was explained to the group by the City Attorney, and questions were asked and invited from the floor but there was no opposition, and the meeting was then thrown open for discussion. The question was brought up as to the area for a single dwelling; Mr. Gist answered "The minimum building site area for a single dwelling is 6000 Sq. Ft. The question was asked, as to the size of the lot for a duplex; this answer is covered by Sec. 5 -R -2 Two Family Residence regulatinns; except as provided•in Sec. 10 and 111 the minimum building site area shall be four thousand square feet and in every case there shall be at least two thousand sq. ft. of land area in said building site for each family or housekeeping unit provided thereon. Mr. Nathan Lewin asked the question, "if a mercantile business has been established for a period of 10 years in one locality and should it be destroyed by fire, could he rebuild without violating the new ordinance? The answer is yes, he can rebuild up to the extent of of the assessed valuation of the improvementse u n 7 LJ fl 1 1 1 1 A question was asked, " in the event that a man who owns a,retail business in an 4 7 1 area which is in multiple dwelling district and at some future time he cares to expand his business, to what extent -can he go? y C K . ,S� . v e Answer: He can make alterations to the extent of the assessed valuation of the property. fir. Palmer asked the question: I have a building on Higuera and Essex Streets and I understand under your plan that this site is proposed for residential section; Would I be permitted to rebuild and add to in case of fire? Answer: Yes, in your particular line of business.( mortuary) you would be permitted to rebuild, however, regardless of what .zone you are in, in case of fire loss you would have the approval of the Planning Commission to rebuild. Later, Mr. Palmer voiced his opinion as to the housing shortage, and stressed the fact that duplexes are especially wanted at this time for returning veterans and other cities are faced with the same situation. Question: Assuming that a man owned an auto court and small cafe in.connection therewith, and he wanted to extend his court and find it necessary to extend the cafe, could he do so' Anseer: Your particular-problem would be allowed in connection with auto courts. Question:. I was wondering if the -building must be 10 ft. from the property line? Answer: There are certain regulations concerning-lot lines which are followed in the State Housing Act. The question was brought up as to a saloon license; Answer: The State Board of Equalization has the right to grant or reject such license and the city does not control it. The Board of Equalization have the right to grant the license to any person wanting a saloon other than near schools or churches. Question: Would the Council have the right to grant permission to build a building that does not conform with the ordinance? Answer; No, the Council would have to abide by the ordinsxe and would have to get the Planning Commission's approval. Question was asked what oo nst itutes. "General Business" - Answer given was that General Business is usually retail business establishments and it excludes.things by reason of noise, smelli size, etc. At this time Mr. R.R. Baymiller, Asst, Division Engineer of the Southern Pacific R.R. Co. stepped forward and stated, " I see by your map that all the Southern Pacific right of way has been excluded from this zoning, however, certain portions are in error and have not been excluded and I would like to petition this Council to exclude all Southern Pacific property from zoning. He went.on further and said the Southern Pacific R. R. Co. would like to have set aside 500 ft. from their right of way for industrial, and along Hathway Ave., Lots 37 and 38 which are industrial sites and not occupied at the present time, and should be set aside for industrial and also the Schwartz Addition, The Mayor then ansivered, "Put.your protest in writing ". At this time Jack Kaetzel appeared before the body in behalf of his client, Mrs. Eva Carpenter, regarding per property; Lots 26- 27- 28- 29 -30, Block 1, Central Addition at Toro and Higuera Streets. He went on to say he did not object to zoning, but he believed in the "rights of private property" and wanted to call to the attention of the Council a few things before they considered the passage of this zoning ordinance. Mrs. Carpenter feels that if the property is zoned in such a way that only residences can be built upon said property, it would be tantamount to taking the property from me without just compensation. In fairness to her and other property owners in the immediate vicinity, this property should be in the business area as it is surrounded on all sides by business uses. 4 72 bir. Timothy..O'Reilly.then appeared and protested for himself and a number of other property owners on Monterey Street from the under pass out to the Motel, and with certain portions on Monterey St. it is zoned as "multiple dwellings ". The people protesting are, 171. W. Cherry; owns the property on Monterey St. from the underpass up to Ida St. Protest of Mary and P. -J. O'Reilly for that portion of Block 44, extending 150 ft. along Monterey St. from the point of the intersection of Ida and Monterey Street extending back to Ida and Monterey-Streets and extending back to Ida St. for 100 ft, local business was asked to'be reclassified as "General Business ". Protest of P. J. O'Reilly as Multiple classification in Block 37 and portions of Block 36. Protest of T. O'Reilly - Block "B" of the Phillips Addn. Protest of A. F. Farrell who ownsthe balance of that portion between Monterey and Murray Ave. and a portion on the west side of Grand Ave. Protest pf Mary A. O'Reilly on the east side of Monterey. St. known as "Hollywood Subs" between Andrews St. and the Motel, a strip of 350 ft. 1 Protest of Cooper Long who owns that portion of Block "Q" fronting on Monterey St. about 350 ft. and a like distance on Palm St. being triangular in shape. Answer: In other words, you are asking for Monterey Sto to be made commercial clear through. Mr. Van Dam asked what disposition would be made of his petition and he was assured after it is referred to the Planning Commission, then it will be taken up by the City Council. The Mayor then replied, " I personally am asking the members of the Planning Commission to extend to your group of petitinners, to come before your meeting when the proposition is taken up. Question: Where. do we stand at this moment was asked. Will the Board consider these protests? Answer: As the matter now stands, the ordinance and zoning map has been recommend for adopt- ion by the City Council, therefore, the City Council may adopt the proposed ordinance as recommended, or they may refer it back to the Planning Commission with suggested changes. 1 Protest of Vim. Nelson; Mr. Nelson objected.to the zoning on.Santa Rosa-St. from Walnut or Sycamore St. to the city limits - Blocks 28,:75, 769 81- Santa Rosa St. frontage. He asked that the zoning should be changed to "General Business ". Protest of E. L. O'Reilly; District of Murray Ave. and.R.R. as industrial zoning. Protest of Tim O'Reilly in behalf of Mr. Cherry; Mr. Cherry plans extensive building im- provements on his property in the.Central Addition on Monterey St.(but will not go ahead with the program if he is. required -to submit plans and request approval of the Planning Commission. 6X)' Protest of Mr. Dubin. he property of Mr. Dubin known as the Nippon Tract is designated in the zoning ordinance as "Multiple Dwelling" zone and he requests same be-changed to "Industrial ". Mr. Fairbanks suggested that the area near the Poly School should be zoned for 1 residential. He referred to that land lying parallel to the Railroad tracks on Murry Ave..and extending beyond Foothill Blvd. Yr. James Bond opposed -to the "spot" zoning on Broad St. b etween�Upham and Buchon Streets and thought it should be open to "General Business ", inasmuch as it is zoned for General Business beyond Upham St. 1 Mr. Wm. Turner's protest was that he thought all outlets to the city should be business, such as Broad St. being an outlet to Edna and the Airport, and he thought Osos St. should be included in that also. Any of those cross roads or outlets should be classed as business property. Question: It is my understanding that in the pink zone, a house cannot be divided into apartments without the consent of the Commission. Answer: The pink zone constitutes a Dwelling one family home; a building containing but one kitchen designed and /or used to house not more than one family, including all