Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />City Council Minutes <br />April 15, 1985 <br />Page Four <br /> <br />Mr. Ted Knoke agrees that the single-family residential zoning is not appropriate, <br />and he has confidence in the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Knoke in- <br />dicated that he supports this proposal. <br /> <br />Sheri Hennemann indicated that three buildings was too much development for the <br />area, and there was already too much traffic on Dodge Avenue. <br /> <br />Mr. Jim Tralle acknowledged that a petition asking for a buffer zone had been <br />received from the Elk Hills people, but in his opinion they're asking for too much. <br />The Planning Commission will provide controls for buffering the residential area. <br /> <br />Mr. Rick Breezee Building and Zoning Administrator indicated that the City had <br />turned down Cl, C2, and C3 zoning and also turned down C4 zoning and now a PUD <br />type of use was proposed. Mr. Breezee asked when and how does this matter get <br />resolved if the commu~ity is not amicable to allowing development in this area, <br />and further stated they should have advised Dietz of that fact a long time ago. <br /> <br />Mr. Hetrick questilioned Gary Santwire about the trees to be cleared. Mr. Santwire <br />advised that the north and west portion of the parcel would be a ponding area and <br />would be landscaped. <br /> <br />Milo Hennemann asked that at least the parcel be considered an outlot. Arlon <br />Fuchs of the Planning Commission supported the PUD, but indicated that the <br />development as proposed is too intensive. He agreed with Mr. Hennemann that <br />Parcel B should be an outlot. <br /> <br />At this time Mayor Hinkle noted that no more comments were forthcoming, and <br />the hearing was closed. <br /> <br />Mayor Hinkle noted that the zone change is the real question, not discussing <br />a number of details in the proposed development. <br /> <br />COUNCILMEMBER SCHULDT MOVED TO ZONE THE 3~ ACRE PARCEL AS PUD. COUNCILMEMBER <br />GUNKEL SECONDED THE MOTION. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schuldt noted that the property needed to be developed, not as <br />residential. He noted that we can expect to have some changes in.a PUD. <br />Councilmember Gunkel noted that Jim Tralle supported the PUD as she does and she <br />suggested that a list of the acceptable uses be included in the motion as an <br />amendment. Councilmember Schuldt agreed to the amendment to include the following <br />uses: <br /> <br />1. Professional offices and business offices <br />2. Bank and financial institutions <br />3. Retail establishments <br />4. Personal service establishments <br />5. All uses allowed in R-2b zoning <br />6. Mortuaries <br />7. Dental and/or medical clinics <br /> <br />Councilmember Williams noted that the building sizes seemed reasonable; that <br />they are not too big. He noted that the PUD designation is proper and not to <br />consider the details at the present time. Councilmember Engstrom noted that the <br /> <br />