1966 301-328 _ 9-26 cont. to 10-24-1966

Browse Search

open and affidavit of publication and mailing ordered filed. Report of the Planning Commission read in which it was reported a public hearing had been held and Commission had recommended that Council not revoke the Use Permit. Report of the Planning Staff read in which history of this Use Permit was recited from initial proceedings. Report also covered plans made by property owner for alteration of building, parking lot, etc., in order to aid bis tenant, all of which had been approved by the Architec- tural Committee. (For full text SEE City Clerk's File - Use Permits) Council questioned whether plans proposed by property owner had been completed and whether conditions imposed on Mr. Woods had been met. Mr. Moritz, owner of property, submitted plan proposed and advised contract for alteration work had been sent out to bid and would be constructed as soon as possible. City Manager was questioned by Council as to whether Mr. Woods had complied to standards requested by City Council. City Manager advised Staff agrees with recom- mendation of Planning Commission, as far as their conclusions that there has been a determined effort to improve the situation and Mr. Woods is complying with the requirements requested. Planning Director further clarified Planning Commission recommendation as to intent. Various Council members questioned in detail required conditions which had not been complied with, such as landscaping, debris outside of fencing, car parking, etc. Mr. Moritz, owner of property, advised landscaping had been completed as requested, but shrubs were stolen from premises. He advised landscaping not replaced to date because of plans for building alteration which had been approved by Architec- tural Committee. Mr. Woods stated fencing had been damaged by car but had since been repaired. Council advised by Staff all cars parked were in operable condition as required. Mr. Woods advised debris outside his fencing not caused by his operation and felt owner of this lot should be complelled to remove debris that is continually being dumped on this property. (Staff directed to notify lot owner to rectify unsightly con- dition) (Memo 10/25/66) Councilman Bury entered meeting at 8:55 p.m. Councilman Henderson questioned points concerning leasing of premises to tenant and if landowner was aware of the Use Permit conditions. Mr. Moritz explained as property owner his reasons for proposed alternation, as felt part of problems in this issue resulted from present ugly building, and intention to make a new image by pro- osed remodelling. He advised Mr. Woods had already spent some 800 on improvements to property,his intention to also contribute 1000 toward $5,000 cost to Mr. Moritz for altering building. He stated his conviction Mr. Wood had complied with conditions imposed in all respects. Councilman Keckley questioned whether Use Permit could be conditioned as to a definite period of time and was advised this was possible. Councilman Petersen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Keckley and carried. On question, Councilman Granger asked whether possible to include in motion to keep these premises under observation. Councilman Petersen moved to affirm action of the Planning Commission and direct Use Permit not be revoked, seconded by Councilman