CCMIN090385 - Laserfiche WebLink

Peter MacDonald, City Attorney, stated that the District Attorney would prosecute under a specific statute. From that point it will not ~return to Council. This item would be handled by the District Attorney who L~would file the complaint. Councilmember Butler stated that even if the skateboard ramp complied ')with all aspects of the zoning requirements, it would still be a nuisance. Mayor Mercer asked if there was a lot of liability connected with the- skateboard ramp and if it would be possible to have this type of activity at a park. Peter MacDonald stated that there was a large potential for injury and would not recommend it. Councilmember Mohr stated the reason for the barking dog ordinance was the persistent noise. She also stated that it seemed to be an activity that young people could become involved in that would be healthy. She asked if Peter MacDonald could check into this and find a way to protect the City if this type of activity was offered at a City park. Mayor Mercer stated that the City Attorney and City Manager has been asked to draft an ordinance to prohibit future skateboard ramps. Brian Swift, Planning Director, stated that the only explicit conditions that have been arrived at so far are the time and number of days for operation. ~ Councilmember Butler stated that there seems to be confusion as to the days of operation. Mr. Swift stated that days of operation are very clearly stated in the rules and regulations. Councilmember Mohr stated that in view of the seasonal change there will'be limited daylight hours, whereas night lighting would be required and could be consequently denied. AP-85-8, Appeal of a decision of the Design Review Board approving the application of Stoneson Development Corporation for design review approval to construct a 216 unit apartment complex on an approximately 13 acre site located on the south side of Stoneridge Drive between Pleasant Hill Drive and Springdale Avenue. Zoning for the property is RM-25 (Multi-family · Residentialt District. Consider Adoption of Negative Declaration Mr. Martin Inderbitzen, 62 West Neal Street, representing Stoneson Development thanked staff for their comprehensive report. He stated that if there is some change in the condition of the dedication starting at 12 ft. down to 0 which is in connection with the center divider, he assumes that condition would then be lifted. Mr. Inderbitzen presented renderings of the proposed project described as early California architectures. He stated the major issues to be discussed are: density, parking, traffic, noise and the design issue. In regards to the issue of density, the proposed project is 16.6 units to the acre. He stated that it was not the most dense project in the City, nor was it the least dense. 9-3-85 6