Laserfiche WebLink
C~si .~!~ feel a housing use would be inappropriate; staff, accordingly, continues to support <br />the effisting land use designation. <br /> <br />Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commil: <br /> <br />The City Couneil reviewed the appeal originally at its April 3, 2001 meeting. At that meeting it <br />determined that the office land use was acceptable, but it referred the building's design review <br />back to the Planning Commission, with direction that the building'S design be reviewed by the <br />City's peer reviewer architect (see attached minutes). <br /> <br />At its April 17, 2001 meeting, the Council voted to reconsider its former action after a discussion <br />as to whether a possible housing use could be considered for the site (see minutes). The <br />recoasidemtion was originally scheduled for May 8, 2001, but it was continued at the applicant's <br />request to allow it to explore possible housing use issues. The applicant also initiated the design <br />peer review process with the City's architect, Mr. Larry Cannon. <br /> <br />The Housing Commission at its May 17, 2001 regular meeting set a special meeting to consider <br />housing as a potential use for the Pedro's site. The special meeting was held on May 21, 2001. <br />The results of this review are described later in this report. <br /> <br />The matter is ready for Council's action on its reconsideration. However, the Council now has: <br />the benefit of the Housing Commission's review. The applicant is asking for the Council to <br />affirm its earlier decision on the land use issue. <br /> <br />RECONSIDERATION REQUEST <br /> <br />The~issu¢ before the City Council is whether it wishes to change its decision that the existing <br />zoning/laird use t, effalations applicable to the Pedro's site are appropriate and should continue to <br />govern tbe chamberlin Group's design review application for its proposed office building. <br />The Chamberlin Group is not requesting the Council change its decision to refer the design <br />aspects of the project back to the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />DISCUSEION <br />The prio~ staff report (attached) described issues affecting alternative land uses at the site, but <br />the~e did Rot address potential residential land uses. For the reasons described ia that report, and <br /> <br />SR:01:132 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br /> <br />