Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />July 27, 1983 <br />Page 2 <br />Mr. Harris responded that the City has checked the tapes of the proceedings <br />and feels the motion was for review of all conditions allowing the <br />possibility for others to be added at the end of the one year review period. <br />Commissioner Lindsey said it is the Commission's intent to review the <br />total aspects of the business within one year but that the conditional <br />use permit would not expire at that time and that conditions could be <br />added or deleted relative to the total operation. <br />Commissioner Wilson originally voted against the proposal because the <br />Commission could put conditions on the project that would make the applicant <br />unable to continue operating; with the staff report stating parking and <br />seating are inadequate and food might be consummed on the sidewalks that this is <br />enough to convince him the applicant will be taking a chance on his <br />capital investment. He also believed that when Del Valle Parkway is <br />brought to Main Street it wouldn't help matters. He said to get in that <br />shopping center now is not an easy task, i.e., the parking is inadequate <br />and difficult to use. He didn't concur with opinions of others that the <br />downtown area doesn't need parking. <br />Commissioner Getty reiterated a comment made previously by Commissioner <br />Lindsey who is a banker that the applicant would have trouble getting a <br />loan if in one year if the City didn't want him to operate. She said <br />all that was meant by the restricting conditions was to monitor the <br />business in one year. <br />Commissioner Doherty wants the use looked at in one year and perhaps add <br />or delete conditions but desires to keep an eye on it because of the use in <br />that particular location -- review all conditions after one year. <br />Joe Simmons, 779 Gordon Avenue San Francisco, representing Shelter Capital <br />announced that July 26, 1983 the City Council approved 200 of their units <br />as opposed to the 232 recommended by the Planning Commission for their <br />development proposed for the easternmost 11 acres of the 27 acre parcel <br />located south of the Arroyo Mocho and east of Santa Rita Road; thus, it <br />is required that the Planning Commission review the plans again since they <br />have changed substantially since Planning Commission recommendation. <br />Commissioner Getty asked if this type of review would be a new trend. <br />Mr. Swift, Assistant City Attorney, stated that this matter must be <br />reviewed by the Planning Commission, though a public hearing is not required, <br />because of the substantial changes in the plan, i.e., number of units <br />approved. He stated this same thing was done when the Holiday Inn project <br />went to Council. He said it is up to the Planning Commission on how they <br />wish to handle this. Commissioner Getty said if changes are substantial <br />enough for a referral back to the Planning Commisson, could the Planning <br />Commission then call it up for public hearing .with notices, etc. <br />Mr. Swift indicated that they can open the matter up for public review <br />at this evenings meeting or instruct staff to notice it and allow it to <br />be considered under a public hearing - it is not a required public hearing, <br />but the Planning Commission can require one. Mr. Harris told the Planning <br />Commission that a decision has to be made in 40 days or the project is <br />deemed approved. <br />-2- <br />