CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

191 Harvey Hall, 19 Athlone Ct., Menlo Park, advised he lived across the track from this property and had just learned of the public hearing the previous day. He wanted to register his protest to the rezoning, and stated he felt one liquor store in that area was enough. Mrs. Harvey Hall, 19 Athlone Court, added her protest to the rezoning. Chief Building Official responded to question from Council concerning the status of the existing buildings under procedures for abatement of dilapidated buildings, to advise they were not specifically under investigation at this time, nor has the Building Department made an examination of them. W. P. Dusharme, 960 15th Avenue, expressed concern that establishment of additional liquor store would generate even greater traffic congestion than already exists in the area, and stated that the character of the neighborhood was such that an additional liquor store was not needed. John Gerkensmeyer, 871 14th Avenue, Menlo Park, stated he li.ved opposite the Water Company office, and spoke in favor of the rezoning. He reviewed history of the area and its gradual development and resulting convenience to local residents. He felt an additional liquor store with delicatessen would be an asset. Mr. Len Wueraching, 48 St. Mary's Place, described efforts at one time to establish a delicatessen in the shopping center, which did not succeed, and felt there was not sufficient business in this location to support another liquor store. Mr. Robert Costello, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. John Steger, reviewed the history of the commercial development, stating present zoning of "PO" represented someone's best thought as to what the area should be zoned, and that the burden was on the applicant to demonstrate clearly there was need for additional commercial zoning in the area. He noted earlier remarks concerning intention of applicant to obtain a feasibility study. He agreed this should be done, and that the burden should be upon the applicant and not the public. He noted existence of additional off -sale liquors within a half -mile of the shopping center. He agreed with an earlier comment that 10,000 sq, ft. was a small vacancy factor. Referring to the preamble of the chapter on "CN" zoning, he noted the intent of the ordinance was to provide means for convenient shopping and essential services to the neighborhoods, and cited other shopping centers in the City where problems develop for the adjacent home owners. He saw no establishment for need to rezone, and recommended applicant be asked to submit a feasibility market report before Council consider the appli- cation. He felt it was the responsibility of the City to establish a balance of zoning, to prevent neighborhood shopping centers from becoming other than that. He noted Woodside Road and E1 Camino Real as examples of permitting unwise developments. He felt there was a responsibility to carry out the intent of present zoning Ordinance, and that "PO" was included for the good reason of providing a buffer tool. He conceded that the day might come when "PO" zoning would not be appropriate, but felt when the time came, there was an obligation to not simply approve it for the first person who comes along. He indicated there was no assurance whether the applicant would construct the building as shown if he does not receive approval from the ABC of his application for a license. Further, he indicated he was skeptical that construction of a building designed for the proposed use would be carried out whether applicant obtains a. Use Permit or not. Mr. Costello felt that alternatives should be studied such as in the Park & Recreation portion of the General Plan, which urged securing an inventory of park sites. He felt it would be wrong to remove this portion from the "PO" designation and noted that it would leave a parcel approximately 1/4 acre in size remaining.