|
174
<br /> City Manager pro tem pointed out that the draft resolution had been pre-
<br /> pared by the City Attorney on the basis of Planning Commission motion , and
<br /> not on their action ( tie vote ) . So that Council understood, the difference
<br /> between this and what the developer was asking was the reference to Map
<br /> P.-1A be changed to P-1 , being the detached units . There was no recommendation
<br /> by the Planning Commission . Councilman Keckley inquired which of the two
<br /> the Planning Director would recommend, and was advised that P-1 would be
<br /> the recommendation as having greater integrity . There was some concern by
<br /> Council that the public hearing appeared to have been on one plan while the
<br /> other was the prefereable one . City Attorney assured them that both plans
<br /> were before them, and the application, itself , was apparently for P-1 and
<br /> technically that was what they were viewing .
<br /> Representative of the Homeowners Association
<br /> indicated it was their understanding the
<br /> discussions had been on P-lA and P-2 , which
<br /> were the plans they preferred, but P-i would
<br /> be acceptable .
<br /> Councilman Keckley amended his motion to include approval of Map P-1, seconded
<br /> by Councilman Williams . Motion carried on roll call vote , Councilmen Keckley,
<br /> Rhodes , Weymouth and Williams voting yes , and Councilmen Henderson , Petersen
<br /> and Mayor Bury voting no .
<br /> Mayor Bury ordered a five-minute recess at 10 : 40 P .M .
<br /> PUBLIC HEARING , Appeal of GEORGIA MARCEAU from granting of a Use Permit to William
<br /> H . Royer , to allow 19 parking spaces in a 38-unit apartment complex for the
<br /> elderly in lieu of the 51 required under the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance ,
<br /> 942 Cleveland Street , in an ' R-4" (Multifamily-Medium Density ) District ,
<br /> declared open and affidavits of publication and mailing ordered filed . Planning
<br /> Commission had on May 11 , 1971 , recommended granting of the Use Permit , subject
<br /> to certain conditions .
<br /> City Clerk read communications opposing the Use Permit from the following :
<br /> Mrs . Barbara Barrett, 203 St . Francis
<br /> Mr . and Mrs . Ralph R . Martini , 517 Vera Avenue
<br /> Mr . and Mrs . Myron L. Duncan, 921 Cleveland St .
<br /> Frieda noose , 473 Vera Avenue
<br /> Mr . C . F. Marceau , Jr . , 828 11th Avenue ,
<br /> represented his mother, Georgia Marceau , who
<br /> had filed the appeal , and indicated concern
<br /> that allowing fewer off-street parking spaces
<br /> would add to the present parking problem on
<br /> Cleveland Street , and indicated the street is
<br /> too narrow for two lanes of traffic if parking
<br /> is permitted at both curbs .
<br /> Mrs . Zuma Francis stated that she lived on the
<br /> corner at the other end of the block from this
<br /> property, and did not feel this was an appropriate
<br /> location for a senior citizens ' residence , being
<br /> too distant from shopping facilities or medical
<br /> outlets . She also felt that the one elevator
<br /> proposed in a three-story building would be in-
<br /> sufficient and that two stairways would be
<br /> difficult for elderly people to negotiate ,
<br /> particularly in the event of fire . She felt
<br /> the location would isolate the residents .
<br /> Mrs . Dollina Bayer , 526 Lincoln Avenue , advised
<br /> she lived adjacent to the property, and that she
<br /> was sincerely interested in seeing facilities
<br /> provided for the elderly, but did not feel a
<br /> three-story apartment building would provide
<br /> a better way of life for them . She expressed
<br /> opposition, mainly because of the parking .
<br /> Councilman Weymouth indicated it was his understanding there were certain
<br /> restrictions as to the number of occupants with automobiles that would be
<br /> permitted, and City Manager pro tem advised that there was a representation
<br /> by the application to the Planning Commission that in their lease arrangement
<br /> there was a limit on number of automobile--owning tenants of not more than 19 .
<br /> This was not a condition of the Use Permit by the Planning Commission , however,
<br /> and he indicated he was not aware whether these were restrictions by the
<br /> Authority, or voluntary . Planning Commission was to re-evaluate the adequacy
<br /> of the parking after one year from date of issuance of Use Permit , and after
<br /> the second year, which could lead to increase of spaces , and a way was left
<br /> open in the Use Permit that up to 8 additional spaces might be required if a
<br /> problem developed in the one-half space per unit .
<br />
|