1968 339- 485 _ 1-8 to 4-15-1968

Browse Search

4-�8 In reply to questioning whether Applicant would accept conditions as set by Planning Commission, Mr. Leps, of Leo Development Company, advised of their willingness to accept all conditions recom- mended except for this one exception for a 11 set- back which if not granted would require their re- arrangement of lots, and planning would still leave only a 4' sideyard and not result in as good an overall development as that now proposed. In reply to questions as to whether series of conditions attached to the original Planned Development Permit granted were being carried over and a part of this new Permit, Planning Director advised all previous conditions were being carried over. Mr. Leps stated it was understood by them the earlier conditions were also attached to this new Permit being considered. Councilman Rosselli moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Council- man Keckley, and thereafter withdrawn to permit further discussion. In reply to questions concerning adjacent property being given same consi- deration as that given to this property, Planning Director advised initiative for planning of this property being taken by the property owner through City ordinance procedures; that no applications for any proposed development of adjacent property had been received, and while adjacent property likewise in R-3 Zoning District, this property under discussion also contained the P -Com- bining District allowing development under a Planned Development Permit, which was granted several years ago, allowing a redistribution of density under this zoning district, which would not be allowable under a straight R-3 zoning. It was also noted owners of adjacent property would have same privilege of requesting a reclassification to a P -Combining District and proceeding with development plans under this same type of Permit providing land area met requirements of the District as defined under the Zoning Ordinance. Staff was also questioned concerning parking spaces being provided, and if sufficient review had been made of their adequacy because of Council Committee now studying need for additional parking in apartment areas to avoid future problems. Planning Director advised that an approved Planned Development Permit had already been granted containing presently valid parking to this point, and for a change to be made at this time would be difficult. Paul Tessendorff, 45 Claremont, felt further considera- tion should be given for additional parking spaces in apartment areas. Councilman Keckley felt applicants should be put on notice of the study now being made concerning parking problems in apartment districts for inadequacy of parking spaces in apartment buildings and on -street parking provisions, and that changes may be forthcoming. Tony Boicelli, 731 Fulton, questioned 36 units being allowed for building on this property, when he under- stood he would only be allowed 22 units on his adjoin- ing property. W., 1 B .68