June 26, 1967 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-- Page 17 Special Session 869, Hinutes June 26, 1967 be heard on Bill No. 6398, }~. Vincent Hennessy, 7460 Ahem Avenue, asked to be recognized~ which request was granted. }~. Hennessy spoke against the project and said he is sure the neighbors of the area involved have made their position clear, but he would like to summarize why they feel the way they do and why they are still opposed to this rezoning. He said there has been no reason advanced to this Council at any open meeting giving any reason why the rezoning should take place~ they feel that the proposed rezoning is non-enforceable under the Conditional Use Permit because it is a Planned Development in name only, it does not conform to any of the re- quirements spelled out under the Zoning Code for a Planned Development. He said there has been some talk and the impression left that there is some architectural control over this project, but there is nothing in the Code which will give the City any definite control. He said the fourth reason, although it is not too pertinent here because the actual Planned Development itself is not being discussed, but it has proceeded through ~ several stages and they are a little dubious because here a plan is being formulated to get a rezoning and this plan itself does not even meet the requirements set down by Mr. ~lucher under which it is working and that is one unit per 3~000 square feeet - if it were actually 3,000 square feet it would be 52 units, and 58 units are under consideration. He urged the Council to vote against the rezoning. In response to an inquiry by Coun- cilman Epstein, l~r. Hennessy explained what he meant about the Planned De- velopment. Mayor Kaufman pointed out to ~.~. Hennessy that the Council must ultimately reach its o~,m decision based upon the information which is presented to it, based upon all of the professionals that have appeared before the Council, for example, the City staff has expressed its interest in the approval - they think this would be in the best interest of the commu~ity - Hr. Blucher, a professional planner has been employed at a fee of some $20~000 and Hr. Blucher has expressed his view in favor of the proposal, and the City Plan Commission on two separate occasions has likewise ex- pressed its approval of this particular application. The P~yor reviewed the background history of this area. He again stated it is incumbent upon the Council, based on all the facts it has, to make a determination as to whether it is, or is not, in the best interest of the entire community and the best interest of the neighborhood. Mr. Hennessy said he realizes that, but would like to point out that the residents had also employed a coasultant with as good a reputation as Mr. Blucher, who gave a contrary opinion. ~e also discussed the action of the City Plan Commission. ~. Hennessy, on behalf of his neighborhood, ex- pressed appreciation for the time allotted them by the Council. Councilman Epstein said she would be interested in hearing from Mr. A1 Goldman~ Supervisor of Planning. The ~yor invited Itt. Goldman to come fo~¢ard and at the request of Councilman Epstein he commented on ~. Hennessy's remarks regarding deviations, etc. i~. Goldman answered ques- tions, and pointed out that the City Plan Commission does not have architectural control, but at the same time there is a review process and he thinks it is a normal part of any review process that the developer would try to satisfy the staff and Plan Commission as much as possible. 1,~yor Kaufman asked Mr. Goldman whether he favors the proposed rezoning and Mr. Goldman answered in the affirmative - said he believes it would be