Laserfiche WebLink
<br />There was concern about potential for too many signs as a result of the proposed Text Amendment to <br />allow portable signs to be displayed. CRC members stated that the matter was discussed and recognize <br />potential for problems but that the language could be revised in the future. <br /> <br />Plan Commission members voted on the Text Amendment for outdoor dining and portable signage <br />separately. <br /> <br />Mr. Salamon made a motion to approve the Text Amendment pertaining to outdoor dining regulations. <br />The motion was seconded by Mr. Miller and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Mr. Salamon made a motion to deny the Text Amendment pertaining to portable signs. The motion <br />was not seconded. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller made a motion to approve the Text Amendment pertaining to portable signs. The motion <br />was seconded by Mr. Jones and carried by a vote of 5 to 1. (Mr. Jones excused himself from the <br />meeting 9:45 pm, prior to the vote.) <br /> <br />7. Other Business <br /> <br />7.a. Public Comments <br /> <br />Mike Jackson 719 Harvard Avenue, stated he was not against redevelopment of the property but <br />opposed to scale and mass proposed on the western side and that it was too large compared to the <br />abutting single family neighborhood. He expressed concerns about all traffic coming through Sgt. <br />Mike King Drive and that it would be too much traffic. <br /> <br />nd <br />Paulette Carr 7901 Gannon Avenue (Councilmember 2 Ward), stated that staff said the project <br />had come before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in August. Ms. Carr stated that <br />according to the ordinance no building could be demolished or changed without going before the HPC <br />for approval. She stated that in August the HPC voted to turn down the concept. She stated it was <br />important for the HPC to accept the concept and that it should go back to HPC. She suggested that the <br />Plan Commission work with the HPC to observe what takes place. <br /> <br />Chris Gordon 703 Harvard Avenue, stated he was opposed to the development as proposed and <br />stated the neighborhood was an afterthought in this matter. He stated this is a transitional zone to a <br />residential district. He stated that the four stories proposed would be a visual eyesore and there would <br />be too much noise. <br /> <br />Ron Skinner 2 Princeton Avenue, stated he appreciated the conceptual plan but thought the proposal <br />was too large and was concerned about the visual impact along Trinity Avenue. He was also <br />concerned about parking and visitor parking along Trinity. He stated an additional entrance or exit <br />was necessary. <br /> <br />Barbara Chicherio 720 Harvard Avenue, was concerned about the number of cars, even with two <br />entrances, and potential back-up onto Delmar Boulevard. She was also concerned about light and <br />noise. She did not want to see Delmar-Harvard School torn down, but understood it could only be <br />converted into a small number of units. She stated she was opposed to the development as proposed. <br /> <br />Bart Stewart 714 Harvard Avenue, stated he was frustrated that the neighborhood was not aware of <br />the proposal and he had to spread the word. He stated parking was a concern and people might try to <br />avoid Sgt. Mike King Drive. He stated a five-story parking garage was too large and would prefer <br />something built similar in scale to the adjacent neighborhood. He stated he was not opposed to <br />redevelopment but concerned about the size proposed on the western side. <br />tğŭĻ Ў ƚŅ Џ <br /> <br />