Minutes 01/22/1974 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2O8 January .22,_ ~74 b) The quantity, quality, utility, size, and type of the project's open space and landscape improvements: HERE IS WHERE THE PROJECT'S MAJOR DEFICIENCIES APPEARED. The project's open space is largely confined to the southeast corner. One begins to sense significance of 24 low-rise units per net acre in terms of the zmpact of high density for this type of dwelling. In finding Chat R-60 provisions are honored, and sensing a cooperative attitude £rom the applicant, the Commission accepted the revised site plan. c) The ability of the project's traffic circulation system to provide the con- venient and safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians: Circulatory design has been improved and sidewalks provided in the revised plan, but the middle building is in the center of what might be regarded as a traffic circle. Our Traffic Engineer appreciates site plan improvements rendered since the origi- nal review and accepts them as a satisfactory arrangement. d) The quantity, quality, utility, and type of the project's community facili- ties (recreation, sanitary facilities, storage areas, etc.): The developer publicly reminded the Planning Commission that he would sacrifice some aspects of site plan design but would compensate with large apartment units. The staff assumes that each one of these units would be relatively self-sufficient in terms of laundry, sanitary, and storage facilities. While the Planning Commission spent a great deal of time in an attempt to resolve off-site drainage problems, it has not been possible to accomplish this end--nor does the Zoning Ordinance place this responsibilit? on the Planning Commission. To date, the Office of Planning has not assessed the group housing project review fee against this application because of the uncertainties related to off-site drainage, which by ordinance must be resolved in the course of City Council approval action. If City Council agrees with the Planning Commission on site plan elements and is able to resolve the drainage issues involved, the Office of City Planning will apply the group housing project fee at thht time." Motion of Mr. Smith and seconded by Mr. Johnson, to be referred to the City Attorney for proper execution, was adopted by unanimous vote. 74-33 The following letter received from Henry L. Brantley, Jr., member of the Simonsdale Civic Club, was read: "The members of the Simonsdale Civic Club wish to remind the council cities' obligation to complete the installation of drainage and curbs and Simonsdale area. again of the gutters in the We realize that work has been star,ed and some drainage installed on City Park Ave. However, we £'eei that the pa.ce is unnecessarily slow and should be increased to complete the installation of the drainage and the curbs and gutters in the whole area as soon as possible. After all, gentlemen, fourteen (14) years can be considered sufficient time to accomplish most any task. The Simonsdale area was annexed in 1960 and since then numerous representatives have bee~ made to the council on this matter. In May of 1968, a petition containing 600 signatures was presented to the council. During the intervening interval several written and verbal requests have been made. The standard answer to these requests was lack of funds or that other areas of the city had a greater need for storm drainage. We feel tha,t the need for curbs and gutters in the Simonsdale area has previously been established. We 'understand that financing is a problem, but funds from "Revenue Sharing" or some other source should be utilized. Gentlemen, the installation of curbs and gutters in the Simonsdale area is long past due. We hope that the council will take affirmative aztion now, is delayed will result in increased costs to the-city and more of Simonsdale." since each day .the project ill will among the resident Motion of Mr. Early and seconded by Mrs Johnson, the matter to be referred to City Manager and furnish Council a copy of information forwarded to Mr. Bran~ley, was adopted by unanimous vote. 74-34 - The following letter received from George R. Walker, 1749 Spratley Street, was read: "Pursuant to Council Gag Rules 2-15.1 and 2-24, it placed on the agenda of the meeting of the City Council 22, 1974 to: is requested that my name be to be held on Tuesday, January Address the issue of the 1974-75 Budget Guide as to its status under the protection of the Freedom of Information Act.