CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

298 Councilman Keckley moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6329 CONFIRMING ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM, seconded by Councilman Henderson and carried on roll call vote. PUBLIC HEARING, Appeal of CHALLENGE DEVELOPMENTS, INC., from denial by the Planning Commission of their application to amend the Zoning Map to rezone property located on the westerly side of Second Avenue between Broadway and Rolison Road, being Lots 10 through 20, Block 6, Redwood Industrial Tract No. 2, from "IR" (Industrial -Restricted) to 11R -51t (Multi -Family - High Density) District, declared reopened, and affidavits of publication and mailing ordered filed. Public hearing had previously been held on June 8, 1970, at which Council acted to reverse the action of the Planning Commission and introduced Ordinance granting rezoning as requested. On June 15, 1970, in response to requests for reconsideration of the rezoning, Council rescinded the motion to introduce Ordinance and directed that the public hearing be reopened. Communications from the following were read in support of the rezoning application: C. D. Sharp, 2666 Bay Road Vela Corporation, 2608 Spring Street Giannotti Inc., 2608 Spring Street Chamber of Commerce, Redwood City, Signed by Rex H. Turner, Pres. The following persons appeared: Gordon Hanson, representing Challenge Developments, Inc., advised other members of their staff were present and ready to respond to Council questions. There was no new evidence or testimony other than given previously, he said. Edith Paulsen, 2828 Carolina Avenue, spoke in objection to the rezoning, indicating there is little industrially zoned land left, other than the Tannery property, and once taken out of that designation it is difficult to restore. She felt industrial property contributes more to revenues, while residential zoning requires more services than it pays in taxes, and that if the development was meant to be a buffer between industrial and low density residential area, R -3-G would be more appropriate than R-5. Martin Mohr, Vice Chairman, Planning Commission, reviewed some of the points leading to the decision of that Commission to deny the rezoning. He showed slides of a map of the City on which the area in question was indicated, along with another area in the core area of downtown where it was recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee in their Downtown Plan that higher density developments would be more appropriate. He also noted limited amount of industrially zoned property. He felt that Ampex, which indicated opposition to the rezoning, should receive consideration. William Oeser, 634 Emerald Hill Road, indicated he was the only Planning Commissioner who voted for the rezoning when _ it was heard before that Commission, and spoke in favor of the application. He said the property had been vacant many years and should be put to use. Also, he felt that the developer had done a great deal for the City.