CC MIN 01-05 to 3-23-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 5 AGENDA (continued) ACTION TAKEN (continued) PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) Leoi 2. (continued) proposed development continued pending a meeting of involved parties-to consider an overall plan. Mrs. Spangler called attention to guidelines used in Santa Cruz, Sonoma County and else- where in the State which could be consulted by the Planning Department with regard to Main Street, noting that all of the buildings on Main Street were not constructed at the same time, and that some are simply dangerous old buildings. She asked that the matter be turned over to the Planning staff and that they be asked to work with those involved. Mayor Biagi invited anyone else present who wished to speak to do so. No one wished to speak. M/S: Stangel/Chandler to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously by voice vote and public hearing closed at 9:20 p.m. In response to questions, Mr. Schroeter said that an architectural permit would be required as cell as approval of tentative and final maps. He said that if there were objections to the architectural design which is approved, appeal could be made and Council would then evaluate it. Also the developer could go to Council if no architectural permit is issued. Mr. Schroeter advised that parking is expected to be adequate and that from the testimony given, the mixed use does not appear to pre- rwM. sent any problem. Assistant City Manager Smith stated for the record that in the immediate past the Planning Department did some work regarding Main Street and there were interested citizens, but the property owners and tenants have generally not participated and no direction resulted. M/S: Stangel/Chandler to deny the subject appeal, noting that the new housing being pro- vided is not being overlooked; that there are benefits from the proposed development for downtown merchants; and that living in the -downtown area reduces the need for reliance on automobiles. Discussion followed concerning the consider- ations of those who studied Main Street re- cently and the lack.of plan for the area; the deteriorated buildings existing there; the fact that Council can have final approval of the architectural design; the fact the pro- posed development offers an opportunity to improve the City in an area which badly needs it; the desire of Council for quality develop- ment; the willingness of Herring and Worley to attempt to work with those involved on Main Street; the advantages of a mixed use building in the area; whether the area has any archi- „-..,, tectural integrity now; the fact that property owners could have refurbished their buildings AND CHOOSE not to do so; and the existence Adj.Mtg. 1/26/81 Page 5