PC MIN 02.17.1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 3 They foresaw a problem with the signage which would be necessary for such a project as well as the intense lighting and the generation of traffic which they felt would be inherent to the usage. The storage of gasoline and provisions for garbage and trash storage and removal were also pointed out as possible drawbacks to the proposal. Mr. Johnson who lives in that neighborhood said he had felt it was a mistake to allow commercial development on that corner in the first place and questioned whether there might not be traffic backed up on the street with cars waiting their turns at the gas pump. He disagreed with the contention that residential development of that property was not economically feasible saying the same point was made when the Lemke Greenhouse property was redeveloped and some handsome residences were built there when the Council refused to allow commercial development of the tract. Mr. Hiebel said he was concerned that some of the greenery shown on the plan would have to be eliminated for driveways to accomodate garbage and trash pickup and that the parking and lighting would prove objectionable to the neighbors. Mr. Lekson said the only concern voiced by the neighbor to the south was that the redwood fence should screen his property. Mr. Rymarchick said he agreed that there would probably never be residential development of that corner and, though he was opposed to the gas pump which he felt in time would become a "dump", he thought the proposal could be modified to allow the new market and a service type of business mentioned by Mr. Lien with control of the signage. Mr. Marks was opposed to the removal of the residence to the east regardless of its size saying the City needs all its single family dwellings and agreed with the contention of the other Board members that the proposal as made would generate traffic problems and degrade other property in the area and would probably speed up the process of decay of that particular corner. However, he favored the concept of a neighborhood market being built there. When Mr. Lien wanted to know whether the Board was considering the proposition under the concept of the new zoning ordinance, Mr. Cowan said they had no alternative but to judge it under the existing xoning if a more specific and detailed proposal were made. Mr. Fornell that there was more extensive landscaping and parking area provided under the proposal than is presently required by the zoning ordinance. When the developer said he did not feel the proposed speedy market could be adapted to fit the setbacks required for a C-1 classification under the new zoning ordinance, Mr. Rymarchick and Mr. Johnson said that, although they were reluctant to draw up the plans for the developer they felt it was possible to position the proposed building so that it could be situated on the site even under the regulations of teh proposed zoning ordinance.