PC 11/14/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commission 11/14/84 The pubic hearing was opened. 62 West Neal Street, stated that staff has Martin Inderbitzen, at the project. They agree with the done a fine job in looking Condition ardin staff report and conditions encYeaccessdedHe addressed concerns He state No. 5 they can provide emerg Y of the Planning Commission and homeowners associationthe roofing their primary concerns relate to access. Concerning ed as material, since this is an aesthetic issue it can be clenof the requested. Chairman Doherty M~kednderbitzenestatedathat they roofing material available. have furnished a sample to stafkin Hspacesefroma74tto 80contthe feels they can increase the Par s aces for each unit. site which would be two parking p Commissioner Lindsey addressed acedsthat theosituationrasfaobadhe area. Mr. Inderbitzen acknowledg did not create this one but appealed to the Commission that they circumstance. er unit prove Commissioner Innes asked if two spaces p ark? One cannot insufficent, where would the other vehicles p ark on Monaco. Further the nrBhitect did not include elevations uilding A, B and C. He inquired p the difference betwee showing The applicants explained there is about the ground elevation. only a one foot difference. 5555 San Jose Drive, thanked the people of Savco for Bob Grove, and a small group of the homeowners meeting with him personally evening. Speaking as president of Mission Parkare not on Monday ect should be denied. They homeowners, he felt this proj 0 osed in concept to the project but felt had concerns with the pp materials, parking, problems relating to proposed roofing ed the Commission to have two spaces per circulation. He then urg and suggested that unit the absolute minimum amount of parking erhaps even another formula beisaeaeedHwithlthehstaffereportte p lan be denied onto Monaco was impaired. He ested the proposed p concerning this issue. He Bugg the homeowners association and that alterresented tovtheeCommission. before being p Commissioner Lindsey then asked what the surrounding uses were. Mr. Grove explained. refer a licant if they would p Chairman Doherty thenroseCa oreifppheY would prefer a continuance vote be taken on he p J lan at a later date. During the for consideration of a revised p announced concerns applicants' deliberation Chai~esidenteofythe homeowners that expressed by Michael Price, p association of the condominiiTS oopDO~yres Drive to staff, approval would devaluate the P At the request of the applicant, a motion was made by seconded by Commissioner Innes that case Commissioner Lindsey, 28 84 for consideration of revised PUD-84-16 be continued to 11/ / development plans. - 6 - __._ _ _ _ _