CC Min 1997-05-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

I I I II two years ago, and thereafter, and the Committee addressed the architectural features not the land use. He said the developers made modifications to the project, and the Committee felt the architectural features and siting were "well above standard tract developments." He described the attention to placement and privacy, and said "from a - design point of view, we felt that the houses were above average by a long shot." Rahn Becker, 1063 Connecticut Way, said his first concern was over the loss of commercial zoning. He said Roosevelt plaza was a focal point for the community with its small businesses, school and churches. He said he agreed that the existing structure was not viable, but that should not serve as justification for a high density project that is not in keeping with its surroundings. He said a sensitive and objective study was needed to explore the possibilities for this parcel. Sensitive to the school, library, churches, small businesses and single family homes in the area; and, objective "by not being a proposal of those who would benefit handsomely from the windfall profits stemming ITom this zoning and General Plan change, but rather a City analysis prepared with the same vigor as the studies that led to Sequoia Station." Mr. Becker said if that study concluded there were no commercial possibilities then zoning changes should be made in harmony with the surrounding residential area. He said the current "proposal was a size 26 project on a size 14 parcel, shoe horned into place with a weird zoning amendment.". He asked Council "not to cave into the first proposal that comes along". and recommended that "the Council disapprove the proposed resolutions and initiate the study and analysis of which your staff is most capable." Owen Greulich, 1247 Chesterton Avenue, said he was in sympathy with Mrs. Yeates but most of the neighbors only became aware of the project July of last year because - they did not live within the 300 feet radius notification area. Mr. Greulich said the attendance at Planning Commission meetings decreased because people believed they were not being listened to. He described the meetings with Mr. Ward over the last few weeks, but said the concerns of only one neighbor were satisfied. Everyone else was not satisfied. Mr. Greulich said his comments about traffic counts were not accurately recorded, and offered to send a letter with the information he had reported. Mr. Greulich said the owners of the property were entitled to a fair market value, "but a fair market value was what a willing seller and a willing buyer agreed to. Neither the Planning Commission nor this Council nor the surrounding community owes the owner any particular value." Mr. Greulich said the Council had an obligation to the current constituency which is for the most part, the residents. He said, "When the community, the surrounding people, the people concerned, come out so overwhelmingly with their views on one side of a project, I believe unless they are clearly doing something wrong, immoral, they ought to be considered very, very seriously." Mr. Greulich provided additional figures on lot sizes. Mayor Hartnett asked Mr. Greulich to please submit the information he had presented to the Planning Commission. Mary Browne, 2498 Roosevelt Avenue, said she concurred with Mr. Kampf regarding - the Planning Commission meeting attendance. She said it was not up to the Planning Commission to make sure the owners received "their fair share." Mrs. Browne said the REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 MAY5,1997 MINUTES Page No. 301 PAGE 26