CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

19 He further commented that under the present cir - cumstances , if the Director of Parks & Recreation , who had indicated by letter he believed the one walnut tree should be retained , if possible , was to be asked by Council now , if the applicant ' s recommended solution was reasonable and justified , Mr . Costello felt the Director would be in agree - ment . Mr . John Quinn , Chairman of the Architectural Committee , acknowledged there had been many meetings on this proposal , all of which he had been in attendance , They felt , however , since reports from Park and Recreation Department had also indicated that the one walnut tree be pre - served as a heritage tree and that solutions had been suggested to the developer for redesigning and realigning the plan to save this tree , by placing units in the large open area , it would thereby also improve the entrance and asphalt roadway proposed through the park area and they would have a better plan . Thus , they had denied the Architectural Permit , since the applicant ' s solution would not be acceptable . Mr . 0 . B . Frank , 1640 Kentfield , stated his dis - approval of approving 27 units for this site , and since zoning would permit duplexes felt this type of construction more suitable . He also noted sewer plant nearing capacity , from reports of City staff . Since this was a problem , felt project should be denied on this ground alone and questioned the theory . Also questioned the capacity of the 10 " sewer line on this street to carry this proposed project , Deputy Director of Public Works , Warren Mitchell , in answer to concern for 10 " pipeline on this street , advised that this was included in the Environmental Impact Report , which did not make any note of concern as to the capacity for this 10 " sewer line being large enough or unable to handle this proposed project . City Manager noted as to concern expressed for City ' s sewer treatment capacity limitations , that this subject was still under review with Council and Planning Commission . Essentially the statement was true , that City was in a situation now for limiting capacity but it would not be possible to be specific and reply to the tri - city planning for a new sewer system by 1976 . Council thereafter questioned many details as to Planned Development procedures , definition of heritage tree-- since a report included as submitted to Council that this particular walnut tree was not in this classification- - role of the Architectural Committee for requesting rearrangement of a plot plan proposal after having been approved by the Planning Commission . Planning Director re - viewed the basic purposes and procedure for Planned Development Permits as detailed in the Zoning Ordinance . The hope for results of better planning proposals , possibility of increased density approvals , all amenities are con - sidered ; i . e . , unusual and outstanding design , and other ingenuities . In referring to this specific proposal , which Planning Commission had not agreed to fully , it had been approved , and as stated , subject to five specific condi - tions , one of which was approval by Architectural Permit , in hopes concerns expressed by the neighborhood might be allayed by cooperative action between the applicants and the Architectural Committee . 0 . W . Irwin , 1650 Union Street , spoke in favor of the proposed project as being an improvement over conditions on the site at present as looking like a junk yard . He also questioned reason for con- - " cern with trees on site and felt they were very ugly , particularly the large one of main concern since he knew it to be only regrowing now from a former stump . In responding to questioning regarding proposed fencing for the project , Mr . Olivia advised fencing around the entire project was within the limits of the Ordinance provisions ; detailed reasoning for the setbacks and offsetting in order to avoid a straight line effect , variation of roof elevations in order to make more attractive , and why planning included a bend in the driveway so the " straight through " effect would not exist . Mr . Frank spoke again as to his opposing project because of additional traffic problems which might be result of additional population in the area . 9/17/73 Reg . Mtg .