Minutes 1979/10/11
4283
October 11, 1979
Gilroy, California
The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Gilroy City Council was
called to order by His Honor Norman B. Goodrich at 8:03 p.m.
Roll Call
Present: Council Members: Roberta H. Hughan, Mairon T. Link, John
E. Pate, David V. Stout and Norman B. Goodrich.
Absent: Council Members: William E. Childers and Brian D. Cunningham.
Gen. Plan Cont'd The Mayor stated that this meeting is an Adjourned Public Hearing
Pub.Hearing on the Modified Draft General Plan. He noted that some people were not
present at the First Public Hearing, assuming there would be additional
hearings on the proposed plan so Council continued same to accommodate
these persons.
The Mayor asked for those persons in the audience wishing to speak
on the modified Draft General Plan to come forward.
The following persons addressed the Council and spoke in regard to
public input in the modified General Plan:
1) Dr. Robert Infelise, Superintendent of Schools. He noted that
Council, at their last meeting, requested that he present same questions
for reflection in regard to the proposed General Plan. He noted that he
asked the School Board to react to the statement relative to schools that
is in the General Plan revision. He noted that the statement begins,
liThe timing and location of new residential development will be controlled
in a manner which is compatible with the ability of the Gilroy Unified
school District to accommodate the additional enrollment which it gener-
ates, etc. etc. II
City Administrator Wood noted that same was on Page 53.
Dr. Infelise noted that the School Board did react to this.
City Administrator Wood further noted that the Item was No. 16.
Dr. Infelise noted that it further states, "In order to offset
the cost of these new elementary and secondary school facilities which
are needed, developers will be required to dedicate land and/or pay fees
for school facilities. New elementary schools will be located on collectors
through the streets rather t~an on thoroughfares and wherever possible,
school paygrounds will be linked to the overall community system of parks
and recreational trails." He stated that the School Board actually never
took action on any of these statements, but, basically, what most of them
said and individually commented was that this is basically where the school
has been and where they currently are and where they seem to be headed.
They, in effect, were saying that they endorse this statement. He noted
that there was extended discussion that this statement not only repre-
sents where they are but it also represents the fact that the Schools
and the City have demonstrated their working together in dealing with
the problem as it currently presents itself. He noted that there was also
extensive discussion about where are we going from here and what long term
planning is, with a lot of frustration expressed.
,,___ "'. _, ~_,,,.__,,_____,,,--, .,..~...... .__.,..---......~ H..... ~._-.._..~ ~~~ ~..... ,-".-... .-.. ....... ... --~
4284
He further noted that he and individual School Board members
have indicated to him (not at a School Board Meeting) with positive
response that possible the City might want to .consider a Joint Com-
mittee (liaison) between the Council and School District Board of
Education for the purpose of maintaining and improving communication
between the School District and the City and to maintain, clarify,
improve and understand the impact on the schools as a result of develop-
ment. He noted that the School Board did, at their last meeting, de-
clare that the schools were impacted and that he would be forthcoming
to Council with a resolution declaring same at a subsequent meeting,
as per the ordinance adopted under Senate Bill No. 201. He further
stated that the purpose of the proposed liaison committee would be
to explore creative alternatives to the future impact on schools. He
stated that there have been considerable effective ways in dealing with
impact on schools as the community grows that goes beyond the current
laws as a result of good positive creative negotiations with developers
and not just developers but other investors in the community. He sited
examples of same. He stated that the School Board feels that ideas
presented solely by the Board would not be as effective if same were
originally discussed by a Joint Liaison Committee. He suggested that
two (2) Council Members, Staff and Legal Counsel and two (2) School
Board Members, Staff and their Legal Counsel compose such a Committee.
-
-
-
....
Dr. Infelise further noted that the other matter Council re-
quested the School Board to relate to was in regard to the proposed
amendment to the General Plan revision. He noted that this proposed
Committee Liaison is incorporated in one of the proposed amendments
to the General Plan, First Statement: "The City of Gilroy will main-
tain liaison with Gilroy Unified School District." Dr. Infelise noted
that in his individual contacts with the school Board, they indicated
that they would like to see same. He noted that in regard to the addi-
tional amendments, the Board did not take any action. He noted that
they indicated that there might be some legal question whether, in
fact, it could happen and that they opposed to it as it is stated and
what it infers.
Dr. Infelise noted that there are some School Board Members
present in the audience that might want to clarify or expand on
statements that were made at the School Board Meeting.
~--,,~
City Administrator Wood asked if Dr. Infelise had any objection
to making it "jointly maintain liaison"?
Dr. Infelise indicated that he had no objection, noting that
they want this to be a joint communication committee to particularly
come up with creative alternatives to just impact fees; noting that
as the community grows, it will take more than impact fees to provide
the facilities that they foresee.
Dr. Infelise noted that there is proposed legislation that does
not look as though it will help Gilroy in the immediate future to any
significant amount. He stated that the legislature is listening to
those districts that are stabilized and declining in growth a lot more
than they are listening to Gilroy.
City Administrator Wood asked if Gilroy would qualify for funds
under A.B. 8 ($13,000,000).
Dr. Infelise stated that Gilroy's needs would not probably be
addressed until June, noting that there are Districts more impacted
than Gilroy, which is called Emergency Relief; immediate relief, im-
pacted now beyond their capacity. He noted that Gilroy has just now
reached its capacity and are declaring impaction. He noted that it's
conceivable that the School District may be able to house what they
have, but it's very "ify". He further noted that at the time the
resolution requesting impaction is presented to Council, this will be
discussed at that time.
-
....
Dr. Infelise noted that another question to relate to is
explore the possibility of collecting impaction fees on an on-going
basis.
-
..,
!" .-:.- -... ,. '.'_."'V_~ ....'---.-.- ~ ~ ""'~~~-_..".'" .~_ _~ ~.._ .-_., "..F ~_
4285
~.......
Councilwoman Hughan inquired to Dr. Infelise that the only amend-
ment that the School Board desires to make to the proposed General Plan
would be the establishment of a Joint Liaison Committee.
-
Dr. Infelise replied that he had not thought of it in that context
but would be willing as an individual to propose that because the School
Board did not take action on it, to make that a part of the General Plan.
-
2) Mr. John Filice, attorney representing various property owners
that have lands located westerly of the Uvas Creek, from Thomas Road on
the south, bordered by Santa Teresa on the west to the intersection of
Santa Teresa and the Uvas which is the northern section on the map and
then across Santa Teresa which is approximately 160 acres which also
borders the Uvas.
.....
Mr. Filice specifically commented regarding the General Plan and
how it effects this area and some general observations concerning the
Plan as a whole. He noted that the area has had dramatic changes since
the last time the General Plan was adopted ten (10) years ago. Santa
Teresa Expressway was built, Gavilan College to the south, City services
extending along Thomas Road to the subdivision bordering Gavilan College.
He noted that they hired the Engineering Firm of George S. Nolte
and Associates to do a General Plan on environmental assessment and urban
suitability analysis on the property in question, and noted that same is
a very specific analysis of this property.
Mr. Filice noted that Mr. Morey Abraham, Senior Planner who worked
on this plan is present to describe what the input was in developing
their proposal. He noted that one of the unique opportunities within
this proposal is the development, preservation and dedication of the
Uvas Creek, noting that they are currently working with the County Parks
and Recreation, numerous local citizens interested in the Uvas Parkway
Project. He recognized the problems that occur with schools from resi-
dential growth and impaction on the schools. He noted that he and a lot
of developers have slowed down development in prior years to cooperate
with the local schools. He noted that two (2) school sites within this
proposed development have already been deeded to the schools. He distri-
buted a summary of requested changes in the proposed General Plan.
1. Phase Lines. He noted that phasing is not required in the
General Plan process but has been proposed. He questioned whether phase
lines really assist in the general planning process or run contrary to
the concept of the residential growth ordinance. He noted that the
phase line would have a negative effect of arbitrarily excluding or
taking points away from a project that just does not happen to be in that
particular phase line. He noted that there are some properties, portions
within the Glen Loma Project, that are immediately adjacent to existing
development and have been pushed into 1985 onward Phase Lines, where
other properties quite removed .from a contiguous core of the City that
are in Phase I.
He stated that he believes that the development ordinance is a
tool to look at projects as they come to B1e City and should encourage
developers that meet those criterian, if the property is contiguous to
existing development, contiguous to the Urban Service Area that the Ctiy
should encourage their participation in that program.
.......
He recommended that there not be phase lines that it be consistent
with the residential development ordinance or the Urban Service Area and
include properties in Phase I that are contiguous to existing development
and be consistent throughout the City.
.....
Mr. Filice discussed potential industrial development, commented
generally, not particularly related to the Glen Loma Plan, and introduced
Mr. Morey Abraham to further discuss the two (2) recommendations of the
Glen Loma Properties and the industrial concept.
~'.."'''''
3) Mr. Morey Abraham, Senior Planner of George Nolte Associates,
in charge of land planning. He explained the Master PaIn of Glen Loma
Ranch in which was applied environmental planning philosophy. He noted
that said plan is in greater detail than the City's proposed General Plan,
but does not differ with the proposed Plan prepared by Duncan & Jones.
-
,e ...,,,..U_IUl..",~IlI!!!~.!!I!l._::i.)e ,~
4286
He requested Council consider two (2) changes in addition to
the one referred to by Mr. Filice. He noted that he would refer to
request No. 2 as Mr. Filice covered the first request. (2) Areas pro-
posed on the City's proposed General Plan for residential estate with
the exception of the area immediately adjacent to Christmas Hill Park,
be given a low density designation. He noted that the average slope
of this land is less than 5% and in their opinion, does not justify
an estate density. He noted that the area is very well served by
existing as well as planned roadway networks; it has frontage along
Santa Teresa Expressway, has several existing and possible access
points. He noted that there are two additional legal rights of access
to the Expressway and in the Agreement. In addition, there is the
option of the Tenth Street Extension through the Glen Loma Properties.
He noted that the estate density translates into higher public service
costs than the suggested low classification because you have a higher
ration of streets and utilities per dwelling unit; and it results in
the consumption of greater amounts of land further away from the urban
area to accommodate the population growth. (3) Requested that pro-
vision be made for local commercial and professional service needs
of the neighborhood by designating lands for these uses at the future
Miller-Tenth street intersection. He noted that the Modified General
Plan proposes no new commercial areas to serve the everyday needs of
future residential areas. He stated that an accepted standard is to
provide a neighborhood commercial center of approximately ten (10)
acres in size to serve a population approximately 5,000 people within
a six minute driving time. He further noted that the Glen Loma pro-
posal in itself has a potential population of 7,000 persons; commer-
cial is a justified proposal. Also provision of convenient neighbor-
hood commercial and professional uses will minimize lengthy drives
for daily resident needs and will encourage use of alternative trans-
portation. He noted that the recommended location does protect the
visual integrity of Santa Teresa Expressway Corridor since the pro-
posed site is approximately 1,000 feet north and east of the Express-
way and also it is at a considerably lower elevation that the Express-
way is. Any center built there would not be visible from the Express-
way.
....
-
....
-
.....
He commented on Gilroy's plan for industry: 1) The electronics
industry is looking south toward Gilroy and even beyond Gilroy to
escape the high cost of housing and the shortage of labor in the north
County. 2) These industries are looking for sites with esthetic quali-
ties rather than the flat land, rail site, industrial sites that are
typically found in the north County.
......
He noted that Mr. Filice gave a proposed policy statement pro-
viding for this type of industry and urges Council to adopt such a
policy which would allow and encourage this type of clean industrial
use in areas of the community such as the Glen Loma Ranch.
4) Mr. Richard s. Harrison. He noted that the remarks of
Mr. John Filice regarding the number of lines that appear on the
Modified Draft General Plan Map and the beauty of the Uvas Park im-
pressed upon him that on the Map both the Uvas Park Drive and Third
Street are portrayed as tapping into Santa Teresa Expressway and noted
that this would be bad planning of the highest order; the Uvas Creek
represents a very great and scenic asset to this community. He strongly
objected to Third Street or Uvas Parkway tapping into Santa Teresa
Boulevard which is a major arterial road. He noted that this would
defeat the concept of having a slow, low speed, relatively narrow, not
heavily traveled parkway for the primary purpose of not connecting
Santa Teresa and Tenth Street, but providing access to the Uvas Park-
way. He noted that it would be equally bad planning tapping Third
Street into Uvas Parkway. He further commented that the logical street
to take the load off of Santa Teresa Expressway for east and west
traffic, that First Street would be the logical street being a major
street and engineered to carry large volumes of traffic.:
--
......
5) Dr. William Patterson, resident. He agreed with Mr. Harri-
son and noted that he was not aware of Third Street tapping into Santa
Teresa Expressway as indicated on the proposed plan. He commented on
the future growth rate in Gilroy with reference particularly to housing.
He noted that this City has the opportunity to continue the unique
characted of this community.
..
-
'-, '"
4287
,~"':"""'l
Dr. Patterson commented on the impaction of the school system.
He endorsed Dr. Infelise's proposal to work with a Committee of City
Council to explore some of the alternatives. He suggested the following:
1) Meet with a committee and planners to put pressure on the State to
determine how the City could use some of the funds resulting primarily
from income taxes and tell the State how impacted we are and how we
desparately need schools for the students that are here. 2) Other areas
now are beginning to explore with developers and with industries, ways
of providing for schools. 3) Recommended consideration of high cost
housing for Gilroy which could, in turn, provide additional monies for
schools.
.....
-
......
6) Mr. Albert J. Ruffo, representing San Benito Ranch Company
and Fenton O'Connell. Re: 1,723 acres of land located adjacent to the
Santa Teresa Expressway and explained the specific location on the map.
He noted that approximately 600 acres of the subject property is quite
level, resting on a plateau and approximately 100 acres is a strip between
the level land and the hillside. He noted that the 1,000 acres could be
used for park trails, recreational purposes, and in conjunction with the
level land privately or put into the public domain and developed for
residential purposes. He takes issue to the following: 1) Subject pro-
perty has been characterized as hillside property which would have a
slope in excess of 5% and noted that this is not true. 1,000 acres does
have a slope in excess of 5%, remaining lands have slopes considerably
less than 5%. 2) Property is proposed to be placed in Phase II, which
would be developable sometime after the year 2000. Not requesting that
it be brought into the immediate development possibilities. Requested
that same be placed in Phase I. Noted that the General Plan proposes
encouragement to maintain open space for agriculture purposes. Opposed
same for the subject property as the hillside is in oak and madrone trees
with trails that wind up through the area. Agriculture and grazing lands
would destroy this very valuable asset to Gilroy. He suggested that said
property could be ideal for high cost homes and provide tas revenue. He
urged Council to consider the placing of this property in Phase I, and
categorize it accurately in so far as its slope density. He presented a
letter previously presented to the Planning Commission. Council noted
that they had copies of same.
p*f-'/"'1!IIt
-
7) Mr. Douglas Duncan, representing Duncan & Jones, addressed
the Council in reply to Mr. Ruffo's statements. He noted that their
intention in indicating this property as either open space or hillside
development within a special plan area was to insure that the land would
be treated as a unit and would not be subjected to piece meal development.
He does not agree with Mr. Ruffo that 600 acres of said property is level
or less than 5%. He noted that same is between 10 and 20% with some
areas of less than 10% .
Mr. Duncan defined Special Plan Areas, Appendix C, Page 68, of
General Plan Document Special Plan Area I B - This area is very important
to the City of Gilroy in terms of its visual characteristics and was not
intended in terms of maintaining it in open space/agriculture use; that
the grazing would supercede the woodland areas and thereby destroy the
visual characteristics that the designation was intended to protect. The
purpose of defining it as a Special Plan Area is to insure that the entire
area of large sections of it in succession are dealt with as development
units so as to permit transfers of density from one section of the site
to the other and to achieve a clustering of development in the most
developable portions and thereby permit the less developable and scenicly
important areas to be retained.
lIIIII"'Ol
Councilman Pate noted that the General Plan is designed for develop-
ment into the year 2000; the portion of property in question designated as
a special plan area is included within that total General Plan Area, but
not within even the Phase II line. He asked how that fits in with the
phasing. He asked if Mr. Ruffo was correct in assuming that the property
he represented is planned beyond the year 2000 or as such time as a
special plan characteristics Can be taken care of, in terms of the total
acreage in the plan and based on the growth.
...
fOP!!!!"";,-!!;
Mr. Duncan replied that at the present time according to the way
that the Phase lines have been indicated, noting that there are three
(3) different approaches to the phasing. According to the phasing system
that they would recommend which is neither the existing Urban Service
Area boundary nor the one which this City Council approved and submitted
to LAFCO. This particular property would be outside both Phase I and II
and would not be subject to development until after the year 2000. He
-
_~,'~_, ..Lv>
4288
noted that it is obviously the prerogative of this Council to do
whatever they want to do either with respect to the land use desig-
nations on the plan or the lo~ation of phasing liries or whether there
should be any phasing lines at all.
.....
....
Mr. Duncan noted that he believes that the presence of
phasing lines is very important on this plan cqnsidering the extens-
ive character of urban development.that is proposed on the map. He
noted that generally following the discussions of view point which
his company got from the Council and Planning Commission, that agri-
culture should not be reflected as a permanent use arid that the
ultimate use should be reflected. Given the assumptions on popula-
tion growth that appeared to have received pretty general support
from the Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, City
Council, ,etc. and which seemed to fit the service providing capabili-
ties in the area, the urban pattern shown on the proposed Map within
what is now the Transition Zone would accommodate approximately twice
as much population as has been assumed for the planning program through
the year 2000; therefore, it seems appropriate to Duncan & Jones that
if the Urban Designations are not to be cut back and restricted and
replaced with some. non-urban designation that there needs to be some
timing or scheduling device provided on the plan and will enable con-
tiguity of development to be achieved. The exact location of lines
is something that is open to argument and discussion. He noted that
the other aspect that guided Duncan & Jones in preparation of their
work and in the location of the phasing lines, was the expressions of
view that they received from individual members of the City Council,
specifically, that generally development should be provided for to
the north rather than to the west initially. The numbers that they
have been using from the'population assumptions did not appear that
it was good planning to provide for the incorporation of the subject
area even within the phase II period.
....
-
Mr. Duncan noted that the subject area is a beautiful site
and it does offer great opportunities for the City. He noted that
he thinks that there should be some flexibility in terms of how it
should be addressed and that treatment of it under a specific plan,
a study area designation may provide that kine of flexibility.
.....
-
Mr. Ruffo noted that he wanted to assure the Council that it
would be the intention of the owners that this property would be
developed giving full consideration to the entire parcel. He further
believes that there is more level land than Mr. Duncan indicated. He
further noted that the property owners would be willing to consider
the possibility of placing the 1,000 acres within the public domain
so that it could be for the benefit of the entire community. He
further noted that if the owners were forced to keep the land in its
present condition for some time in the next century, then they would
be forced from an economic standpoint to make the highest and best
use under the circumstances and within limitations that are imposed
upon it. He noted that the owners want to preserve the 1,000 acres,
but in order to do so, they would have to have some kind of plan that
would come within a reasonable time.
8) Ms. Carol Magnoli, teacher for ten years in Gilroy. She
commended the Planning Commission regarding the stand that they took
on Air Quality, EIR, Page 5 refers to the modified Draft General Plan
as a growth accommodation plan upon which the City neither discourages
nor stimulates excessive growth, but rather manages and guides it
according to the development principles articulated by the community,
etc., etc. She noted that the modified General Plan does not fit
these three (3) criteria to the letter. She noted that it does have
too many elements which are consistent or nearly related to the stimu-
lated growth patterns of the growth plan. 1) The extravagant alloca-
tion of land. She noted that she feels by increasing the current
urbanized area by three and one-half (3~) times as stated on Page 22
of the EIR that this really is an extravagant allocation of land; the
Transition Zone of 8,319 acres, not counting the Urban Service Area,
would ultimately be able to accommodate residential population of
82,000 people +. She urged the Council to recognize and act upon
the Planning Commission's recommendation to reduce the Transition
Zone back to the phase II boundary. 2) Sequency of requirements. She
-
.~
-
-
4289
fflitIfl':.-w,
noted that she did not find any specific requirements regarding the
sequency of this development. She noted that if the Transition Zone
remains as large as it possibly could in the planning area, some land-
owners may be falsely led to believe that their land could be put to
urban use in outlying areas when, in fact, it will not occur. 3) Program-
ming of Municipal Services and Facilities. The EIR states that to accom-
modate the projected population of 38,500 in the year 2000 an expansion
of Gilroy's 1980 sanitary sewerage facility will be needed in order to
provide enough capacity. It was also anticipated that Gilroy will need
two (2) new secondary schools and five (5) new elementary schools. She
also noted that since Proposition 13, acquiring the funds for the develop-
ment of school sites has become increasingly more difficult if not impos-
sible. As an educator, she strongly urged the Council to adopt the two
modifications that were presented regarding the schools, because the City
is, in fact, at the point of impaction.
-
-
.....
9) Mrs. Marianne Bruegmann, Chairman of the Board of Education
of the Gilroy Unified School District. She noted that the School Board
supports the proposed General Plan. She urged the Council to treat the
information that they give regarding schools and school impaction with
the same sensitivity that has been shown in the past when the City sets
the figures required by the growth management policy on a yearly basis.
She noted that children are a critical part of this community and to
house them properly is very very important. She requested that this be
taken into consideration when the City sets the growth management figure.
She urged that a Joint Committee with the City Council and School Board
be established in order to improve communication, in order to pass infor-
mation back and forth, and in order to find some way to finance education
with the least amount of burden on the taxpayers. She noted that at the
present, Gilroy is about 45th in line under A.B. 8 which means about
six years in the future and she is not willing to wait that long.
-
10) Mr. Tom Balasic, Professional Planning Consultant with Wm.
Spangle & Associates, representing a partnership known as Santa Teresa
Vineyards who include Ed Mattos, Joseph McCormack, Joseph Barbera and
William Reimal. He referred to property containing approximately 44 acres
located on the north side of Santa Teresa between Thomas and Miller. He
noted that this property is shown with residential use. He noted that
the partnership of Santa Teresa Vineyards requested that the parcel be
included in Phase I area for development between 1980-1985. He noted
that abutting property to the east is now in the City and the City has
indicated that this abutting property for inclusion in the City's cur-
rent Urban Service Area. He noted that the Santa Teresa Vineyards
property is contiguous to property along Thomas Road which have been
identified by the City as appropriate for near future development. He
noted that sewer and water facilities are available to said property.
He noted that the 1968 General Plan designated a portion of this property
for local commercial use. The owners requested that this designation
be continued in the Modified Draft General Plan with the balance of the
forty-four (44) acres assigned to residential use to permit a well
designed condominium, a rental housing development. He noted that it
would be appropriate to designate the forty-four (44) acres as a Special
plan Area. He further noted and requested on behalf of the partnership,
that the Council consider three (3) changes to the General Plan as pro-
posed contained on Page 2 of the information presented this evening, as
follows:
-
1. The General Plan be changed to designate this parcel as Special
Plan Area I C to permit a unified planned development of a local shopping
center and adjoining residential area;
...
2. Discusses a proposed text to accommodate that unified planned
development and for this to be included in the Appendix C of the Draft
General Plan;
~
3. That the forty-four (44) acres of Santa Teresa Vineyards
property be included in the Phase I development area. He further noted
regarding the Planning Department Staff Report of September 25, 1979,
based on the Planning Commission's hearing, although there was not
specific action taken on this request that there is a general recommenda-
tion from Staff and this is included under Item 7 that more commercial
areas should be located where sufficient land is available for shopping
centers rather than to encourage further strip commercial. He noted that
"'i~
4290
Adjournment
in Ite~ 8 of that reoommendation same speaks to the enlargement of
high density residential and to particularly to provide for multi-
family dwelling units. He noted that he believes that the request
from the Santa Teresa Vineyards is basically consistent with the
intent of that Planning Commission and Staff recommendation and
further submits to help create identity for the neighborhoods of
the Gilroy Community, some outlying shopping areas must be considered.
11) Ms. Jean Beno. She requested that Council consider extend-
ing light industry north of the Ronan channel between Monterey and
the new Freeway and Buena Vista. She noted that housing is not a
good zoning for that area, lives there and knows how much noise is
generated and not conducive to good living.
12) Mr. Dick Karman, Los Gatos, representing the property at
the northern boundary of the General Plan just west of Monterey High-
way with the northern boundary of Fitzgerald and the western boundary
would be the future Santa Teresa Expressway, formerly Allemand Ranch,
approximately 155 acres. He noted that the subject property is beyond
Phase II in the proposed Modified Draft General Plan, after the year
2000. He suggested and recommended to keep Phase I and the balance
of the properties outside of Phase I and each year review and possibly
change the phase I line at subsequent years.
City Administrator Wood presented and read a letter from King
& Domingues regarding property at the northwest corner of Morey and
First Street, a two and one-half (2~) acre parcel designated on the
General Plan as medium density residential, defined on Page 35 of the
Modified Draft General Plan primarily for small multi-family structures
such as duplexes and triplexes. It was noted that optimum use of this
corner parcel will not be permitted under this designation. It is
suggested that this corner parcel become, because of proximity to
commercial shopping areas and main traffic arterials, and should be
designated high density residential.
City Administrator Wood presented and read a letter from Malcolm
Riley Company regarding property at the southwest corner of Chestnut
and Tenth Streets, recommending that same be designated for commercial
uses.
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present in the audience
wishing to speak on the proposed General Plan. There was no further
comment from anyone in the audience.
Motion was made by Councilman Link seconded by Councilwoman
Hughan and carried that the Public Hearing be closed.
Discussion was had by Council. Council requested that all
input and questions be correlated in order for Council to study same
along with the text of the General Plan. It was noted that Council
intends to set a meeting for study of Same on October 22, 1979, at
8:00 p.m.
At 9:38 p.m., the Mayor adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
;JY4~c6 crty