HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3688 Staff AnalysisJune 9, 1981
SUBDIVISIONS
Item No. 1 - Continued
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant submitted a more detailed plan which
indicated: (1) provisions for all parking spaces, and (2) a
40' landscaped area along the southern boundary of the site
which abuts Hillsborough Subdivision. Engineering reported
that this proposal will not add water to the ditch which
runs behind the homes on Beckenham Drive because the runoff_
will be carried over a new route to the drainage structure
under. Hinson.
A motion was made to approve the revised plan submitted by
the applicant. The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes, 0
noes, 2 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION - June 9, 1981
Mr. Lynn Wassell spoke in behalf of the applicant. In response to a
request made by the Commission, he specified that 211 parking spaces
for a total seating capacity of 800 people would be provided. This
is'well in conformance with the Ordinance's requirement of one (1)
parking space for every five (5) seats in the principal assembly room.
Mr. Wassell also pointed out that 50 spaces would be provided in the
initial phase of the development.
Mr. John Matthews, an attorney, represented the opposing property
owners in the abutting Hillsborough Subdivision. He stated that the
objectors continued to have reservations about the proposed con-
struction and subsequent consequences. The main causes of dissatis-
faction were feelings that (1.) the applicant had not submitted a
concrete and total plan for development; (2.) the landscaping plan
should be reviewed by the Commission, (3.) City Engineering had not
presented a formal drainage study, and (4.) a plan for transportation
should be submitted.
Rebutting statements were offered by: 1.) Mr. Wassell - who stated
that the total plan, including landscaping provisions had been pre-
sented in a meeting with the opposing residents; 2.) Mr. Robert Lane -
A City Engineer, who stated that the drainage matter had been
studied by his department, and they were of the opinion that there
would be no adverse effects to the residents; 3.) staff, who pointed
out that landscaping plans were submitted to Environmental Codes for
review, not the Commission. The Commission voted in agreement_+Wtth
the Subdivision Committee's recommendation for approval of -tKe
application by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent.