CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

285 Mr . Terry Roach , 734 Menlo Avenue , Menlo Park , Attorney representing the Applicant , reviewed for Council series of Planning Commission meet - ings relating to the application , beginning with October 10 , 1972 , following by a public hearing on November 14 , 1972 , at which there had been no recommendation by Planning Staff for denial of request to rezone . Various people were heard at that meeting , after which public hearing was closed * Following this , Staff issued a recommen- dation urging denial by the Commission on November 21st , at which meeting there was no opportunity for the Applicant to make a rebuttal . He indicated the 4-3 vote for denial came at a closed session during which no comment was allowed , and felt that this denied an opportunity for complete hear- ing on the matter . He also commented with respect to assertion by a member of the public during Planning Commission meeting concerning the number of units that could be placed on the property , and advised it was their intention , should the rezoning be granted , to follow the Architectural Committee requirements , which he assumed would be very strict , and at no time represented the intention to have 12 - 14 units , but only that this was the maximum permitted on this property . Other comments in the Staff report led him to believe the property was difficult to develop . He felt that "R-4 " zoning was logical , would create a buffer zone for the "R- l " District behind it , and would not appreciably increase traffic . With respect to a suggestion that the property be developed as a professional office building , he noted that the property had been zoned for some time to accommodate that type of develop - ment , but had remained vacant . He also stated that there had been numerous efforts to develop the property under various zoning designations . In response to questions by Council , Mr . Olmo , the Applicant , indicated that , although he had not gone to the expense of having preliminary plans drawn up , he believed that because of parking and open space requirements , the maximum units would be no more than eight to ten . Mr . Paul Traver , 470 Flynn Avenue , indicated he lived adjacent to this lot , and reported problems with a nearby existing apartment which he felt would be aggravated by another apartment . He also expressed concern that a two or three story build - ing would overshadow his house , and that traffic and parking problems would worsen . He felt the property should be developed as professional build - ing . Planning Director enumerated the types of uses permitted under "CN " and "R-4 " zoning , in response to question by Council . He explained that other than meeting parking and open space standards , there was a certain amount of flex - ibility under the zoning ordinance as to the number of units that could be developed . Councilman Henderson referred to remarks by Mr . Roach concerning the public hearing procedures in the Planning Commission , and in response , the Planning Director advised that in the past , the method used was to provide a Staff 2/5/73