PC 03/14/79 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Harris explained the staff report and their recommendation of approval as an appropriate land use. (Meeting resumed at 9:35 P.M.) Mr. Harris stated the staff has no interest in keeping only the 5 acre area as a park. Mr. Harris stated someone called the Planning Division March 14, 1979 stating a person unknown had taken a surrounding property notice sent by the Planning Division and typed on it "Come to the meeting and voice opposition to this project." Mr. Harris stated he hadn't seen this changed notice but did want to clarify that the Planning Division did not put this comment on that document. The public hearing was then opened. Peter Turner, attorney representing the applicant spoke. He stated the applicant had applied for the General Plan Amendment because the City Council stated they would rather have fees instead of park land dedication. He further said the proposed development would be a first class one. THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: William Kratcho, 2841 Jones Gate Court Doug Bennington, 4957 Mohr Avenue Doug Stuhr, 4849 Mohr Avenue Irene Bennington, 4957 Mohr Avenue Harry Luce, 4633 Ross Gate Richard Cable, 4848 Smith Gate Linda Kratcho, 2841 Jones Gate These individuals spoke to concerns of losing a buffer between their resi- dences and the park and access by Fire Department to this area if develop- ment persisted. They stated they were told by realtors and the Planning Division that this area was zoned for parks and that is why they purchased their houses where they did. They addressed traffic, pointing out that at a City Council meeting it was stated there would be 5,000 cars on Mohr Avenue in one day if this project were approved. Mr. Stuhr stated he came to City Hall and asked for a copy of the minutes of that meeting and such copy was denied. Harvey Levine, City Attorney, assured Mr. Stuhr all minutes were a matter of public record and available. Harvey Levine, City Attorney addressed statements made by Mr. Kratcho stating they were untrue and unfair inasmuch as the City and not the applicant, triggered the initiation of the General Plan Amendment and that the applicant in an effort of cooperation with the City made the application. Commissioner Leppert stated that one of the reasons he previously recom- mended approval of the General Plan Amendment was because the 5 acres was left out of the original application. Mr. Bennington, 4957 Mohr Avenue, again spoke stating the environmental study done on Hopyard was old and didn't properly reflect accurate traffic counts. He stated that the Fire Department previously had a problem concerning access and that if the houses were built, there would still be a problem. -3-