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