CCMIN100378 - Laserfiche WebLink

The ro~ call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmen Brandes, Butler, Kephart and Mayor Mercer NOES: Councilman Wood ABSE!~: None It was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Butler, that an ordinance approving PUD-78-3, subject to conditions, be read by title only and waive further reading thereof. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmen Brandes, Butler, Kephart, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None. it was moved by Councilmember Brandes, and seconded by Councilmember Kephart, that Ordinance No. 866, approving the application of H. C. Elliott, Inc., for PUD deve!~pment plan with regard to a fourteen acre site between Tawny and Palomino Drives immediately east of Pico Avenue - six and nine-tenths acres is proposed for residential townhouse development and seven and one-tenth acres is proposed as a neighborhood shopping center, subject to all conditions contained in Planning Commissioh Resolution No. 1664, be introduced. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmen Brandes, Butler, Kephart, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None Application of John Amaral for a 5eneral plan amendment from HiSh DenSity Resi- dential to Commercial and Offices for the proper. ty located at 404 St. ~ry Street. A negative declaration of environmental impact will also be considered (Ccntinued Open from 8-29-78) Mr. Harris presented his report dated AuguSt 22, 1978, regarding this matter. ~yor Mercer declared the continued public hearing open on the negative declaration and the application. i,[r. Jack Bras, Architect representing John Amaral, stated the proposed use of the property would be commercial office, not retail. tle stated there was a short- age of office space in the downtown area, that the proposed use would be compatible with the surrounding area and was good planning for this particular parcel. He urged Council to study future development on Peters Avenue. Mr. Merton Murray, 470 Mavis Drive, representing his mother who lives at 418 St. Mary Street adjacent to the subject property, stated his mother had no objec- tion to the application and felt it would be an improvement to the existing condi- tion of the property. E. R. Krause, 411 Division Street, spoke in favor of the application. Mrs. Alice Mohr, 431 St. Mary Street, spoke in opposition to the application stating she felt it would not be compatible to the existing older home area, that it would increase taxes on existing property, and that it would create spotty development. Mr. William Kovac, 3124 Weymouth Court, spoke in opposition to the applica- tion because he felt it would cause spot zoning. 5. 10/3/78