My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
REP PC 042 11/08/2005 2004-2006
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Reports
>
2004-2006
>
Planning Committee (PC)
>
REP PC 042 11/08/2005 2004-2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2008 10:35:14 AM
Creation date
5/8/2008 11:41:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Reports
Reports - Type
REP
Reports - Council Term
2004-2006
Report
042
Committee
PC
Meeting date
2005-11-08
Document Relationships
AGE PC 11/08/2005 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2004-2006\Planning Committee (PC)
BIL 163 Draft 01 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2004-2006
BIL 163 Draft 01 2004-2006
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2004-2006
COM 0494.000 2004-2006
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
COM 0494.000 2004-2006
(Related To)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2004-2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Communication 494 <br /> Bill 163 <br /> Page 3 <br /> Council Member Safarik expressed the same kind of question Chairman Higa had and asked what <br /> would the process be if in the future a new owner wanted to subdivide. Mr. Fuke responded that <br /> the applicant had no intention to have the property subdivided but if that happened in the future and <br /> a new owner wanted to subdivide, the council would have to approve it and the new owner would <br /> have to comply with the subdivision code. Mc Fuke stated if the applicant cleared the old building <br /> to construct a new building then the Applicant would have to construct improvements such as <br /> pavement, curbs as stated under proposed Condition E. Council Member Safarik stated he'd <br /> support this application based upon the inforniation Mr. Fuke's client provided. <br /> Council Member Holschuh inquired whether in a Change of Zone application such as this would <br /> the Applicant have to notify surrounding neighbors. Mr. Fuke stated that all surrounding owners <br /> within 300 feet were notified of this Application and no one objected at the Planning Commission <br /> hearing nor were any written objections received. Also, at the Liquor Commission, a hearing <br /> notice had to be provided, and no written or verbal objections were received. <br /> Co-('hair Hoffinann inquired whether this type of classification included a Hostess Bar. Mr. Fuke <br /> stated it could include a Hostess Bar and that the Liquor Commission would have to make that <br /> <br /> determination. If fifty plus one percent of the surrounding property owners object to a Hostess Bar <br /> <br /> operation, then it's an automatic denial. Mr. Fuke noted that a Hostess Bar is already a permitted <br /> use under the existing zoning. <br /> There were no statements from the public on this matter. <br /> Your Committee on Planning is in accord with the intent and purpose of Bill No. 163 and <br /> recommends passage of Bill 163 on tirst reading. <br /> nrHa voHS nx~H; r:x Re5peetfully submitted, <br /> 4Kn KAKI X <br /> rncn 7{ COMMITTEE ON PLANNINQ <br /> IIOFFM ANN X _ ~ <br /> HOLSCHUII X ~ ~ <br /> IKN;Dn X <br /> IsBra.l. X Pcte Hoffinan~~„ Co-Chair ~ <br /> .In<'oI;SON X <br /> rn,nco X- - - <br /> SnFnRIK , _ '1 <br /> K. Angel Pil .o-Chair <br /> PC REPORT NO. 42 <br /> ADOPTED: Nf1V~ <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.