Laserfiche WebLink
; 426 <br /> I ' <br /> rprB(. September 1,,1980 <br /> ktl <br /> jI 42 Police Firing Range d porded at hs of the range tand SSe location of the <br /> t recorder d residentialin ows not in favor of a sundersted <br /> p Burr also said that <br /> 0,3, development encroaching 11. the issue of noise levels was not addressed and felt there could be a <br />.•,.', possibility <br /> relocate <br /> re <br />{YProblem,p haps a expense r. a. ti <br /> t msae <br /> II' advisable not m allow the development rather than M1av go relate <br /> I hrange. <br /> he <br /> I(r� and P.Is exactly as presented. FW.Gregoire stated utrlities were <br /> d PRD's are a site plan revrew and are not parcel-oriented. <br /> Department, xB process <br /> ' Dennis Gregorre,of the Planning <br /> adequate in the area of the proposed PRO,and all requirnments of the <br /> A'II 4 codehad been met and the prodect was felt to be compatible with the problem was there her or of trafficat there was a as den <br /> PROexisted <br /> surrounding ea whet the project zed <br /> 1; Y(M ornacP ved. u <br /> ncilman Langus asked if this PRD was judged on its own merits <br /> ' <br /> dlY <br /> 4 o 4..Gregoire sard it was and the PRO code was very explicit n <br /> p1 ai developing <br /> 11; y� pralso wal t e basis for P denial. <br /> f ' unMichelson asked an checklist followed <br /> {i3 , and Mr.cregozre d they did not feel z[was necessary Prole,' <br /> I' d;3'11 <br /> Gipson asked traffic e baddressed <br /> and Mr. the Planning CommIssion.s report showed that the <br /> ! 9 significantstatistics presented were not would <br /> ot adversely effect <br /> y thed Public works reserved a � f <br /> the <br /> rep d tpoint out a trafficfproblem would <br /> '; impact the neighborhood. <br /> ' <br /> yr a <br /> 4 Councilmansaid <br /> if a traffic u <br /> neigh <br /> ' e then said <br /> bozhood he couldnosee compounding Itbyaatraffic. <br /> �i� o ee said agreed h <br /> this P. not in h an and submitted <br /> n Mena b Terwilliger,Deputy Prosocutinq y <br /> Campbell, rt <br /> County Department,regarding 1 posed plat u consideration. he opinion addressed issues <br /> of density <br /> comprehensiveethis <br /> t [1613; <br /> It, pz Jtadask a felt <br /> rands[ e h <br /> 1pzz <br /> different <br /> open Pacesh theeh <br /> J Y <br /> rrtY as open space. He said the City has the <br />,' ' option of <br /> purchase it and saggeeted <br /> that a preservationf d 5°°oyes sataatraaa sash <br /> ` d o <br /> „ applicable nd that there has been no changeof conditions inM1 <br /> . He then read a <br /> e,former member of the Planning Commission when the PRD <br /> dev <br /> { <br /> neighborhood to letter ordinance sbeing ed ere zg con <br /> mary L. h <br /> 1Ceand proposed <br /> us for thisprol ct This letterter <br /> was <br /> a <br /> lso <br /> requested to designated an exhibit. <br /> II` also ted a statementmade at t August 6th Planning <br /> CommIssion workshop by TsMarsh reghalowthat she felt <br /> should baddressed f beforeapplying a <br /> 1' figure and he felt it was applicable <br /> here also. <br /> I <br />