CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

LJ Mr . Irwin spoke again as to statistics he had gathered concerning the number of vehicles now in the area from commercial parking alone . Alfred Dixon , 1171 Kandle Way , expressed his disapproving the project proposed because of present difficulties in getting onto Woodside Road from this area , and felt this additional increase in density would make matters worse . Councilman Williams moved to close the public hearing , seconded by Councilman Leipzig and carried . Council then questioned the appropriate action which might be applied , from the recommended actions listed on the Agenda , and the intent of each . Councilman Williams indicated his desire to make motion to adopt the appropriate Resolution to rule in favor of applicant by approving Planned Development Permit and to reverse the action of the Architectural Committee denial of the Architec - tural Permit , City Attorney advised Resolution referred to would fulfill this motion when Resolution adopted as also still included requirements for Architec - tural Permit which would in effect be granted . Councilman Norris questioned what other requirements would be included in the Architectural Committee ' s recommendations . City Attorney stated it was his under- standing that other recommendations had been agreed to by developer , and this one point relating to the one walnut tree would be excluded only , Robert J . Costello reassured Council that all other obligations as motion proposed for adoption of Resolu- tion , would be included for the Planned Development Permit , with the one exception as explained by the City Attorney . He also assured Council of his client ' s con- firming their fulfilling these requirements . Councilman Norris also expressed his belief that the site planning recommenda - tions for alternatives to save this one tree did not rightfully fall under the jurisdiction of the Architectural Committee , Vice Mayor Henderson indicated her intention to oppose the motion as presented as she felt it very important to recognize the value of the Planned Development Permit procedures as had been thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Director as to diversity of planning for better quality , aesthetics , etc . She still objected , however , to much of the proposed planning and felt it to be in the best interest of the City to deny the Planned Development Permit with prejudice . She stated it would then be possible for them to apply at any time without requiring any legal timing . In response to questioning , City Attorney assured Council this would be correct as to a broad revision of the planning for this project and would not be limited to timing restrictions . Councilman Rhodes indicated his support of motion made to grant the Planned Development Permit , since he felt it was well substantiated that the developer had worked long and hard to present a plan which would be acceptable to the City . Councilman Leipzig stated her intention for opposing the proposed motion , and also would have favored lesser density, not the concerns of the tree or landscaping . Councilman Williams moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO , 6991 CONDITIONALLY APPROVING APPLICATION FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF KENTFIELD AVENUE AND UNION AVENUE , seconded by Councilman Rhodes and carried on roll call vote , Councilmen Norris , Rhodes , Weymouth and Williams voting yes ; Vice Mayor Henderson and Councilman Leipzig voting no , and Mayor Keckley being noted absent . PUBLIC HEARING , Resolution of Intention of the Planning Commission to initiate proceedings to amend the Zoning Ordinance to permit large scale retail stores , where any such store occupies at least 30 , 000 square feet of floor area in any single building ; any retail store occupying less than 30 , 000 square feet of floor area in any single building is prohibited in this district - IP and IR Zoning Districts , declared open and affidavit of publication reported on file . There were no communications reported on file . Planning Commission at their meeting of August 27th , recommended Council approve amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as being in the best interest of the public . City Attorney reported that in further reviewing and discussing with the Planning Director the draft of the Ordinance submitted for Council ' s review had a slight change which would better reflect the intent of the Planning Commission in that inclusion was made for some permitted retail sale uses already existing , so as not to create an ambiguity . Planning Director , in response for a summarization of this procedure , advised that the Planning Commission considered this proposal to be an important significant revision to the Zoning Ordinance . He noted that a similar type of rezoning had been considered once before by Council which had an 9/17/73 Reg . Mtg .