CCMIN080878 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Butler stated he would support the prezoning to the "A" District but that he felt prezoning to the PUD District on this property would have been much more appropriate. Appea! 9f...Frg~ C. Brand~p.~ Jr., of ~.deqi.~ion of the .Planning commission app~0ving case uP-78-11, the application of Tam Investment Company for a conditional use per-_ mit to allow the use of a small portion of the 1.8 acre P (~Ublic and-Institutional) .zoned property lqcated on the north side of Valley Avenue approximately' 400' east of Hopyard Road for the parking of..automobiles in con3~ncti0.p.w.~th .a.s~opping center proposed to be located immediately ~est. 9f the subject site Review of the decision of the DesiSn Review Board Re: Tam Investment company. projeCt o__n~alley Avenue at Hopyard Road Mr. Harris presented his report dated August 2, 1978, regarding these two items. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open. Mr. William Hirst, Attorney representing Tam Investment Company, spoke regard- ing the changes made to the site plan in order to alleviate the concerns of the residents in the area. He stated he felt it was a good site plan and urged approval of the application and denial of the appeal. The following persons spoke in favor of the application: Harold Tripp, Hopyard Road Jim Anderson, Hopyard Road Dan II~honey, Longspur Way The following persons spoke in opposition to the application: William Witke, 2790 Longspur Way, ~ho read a telegram from R. Pozzebon listing his reasons for opposition to the application. Stan Callon, 2868 Longspur Way Mr. William Kovac, 3124 Weymouth Court, stated he was neither in favor of or against the application but suggested the landscaping buffer not be Eucalyptus or Long Pine Needle trees. Mr. Hirst reviewed the purpose of providing 17 parking spaces on the "P" site. He stated the mason fence would be erected 4mmediately and the landscape buffer done as the "C" site is developed. Mr. Arnold Link, representing Tam Investment Company, further explained the buffer wall which is to be built ~mmediately with landscaping on the "C" site done later, and stated no buffer landscaping would be done on the "P" site at this time. Council stated they felt the landscape buffer should be done at the same t~ne as the masoncry fence is constructed. Mr. Hirst indicated his client was agreeable to planting trees on the east side of the property in the "C" site at the time the wall is erected if the Council requires it. Mr. Guest, Architect for Tam Investment Company, presented a site plan of the "P" site showing the proposed 17 parking spaces and stated that this would more clearly define the entrance. 4. 8/8/78