03/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Murray to set hearing on the appeal for the March 10 Council meeting. Corom Councilman williams questioned whether the appeal should go first to 2/26/75 the hearing panel, but Assistant Manager answered that Council bylaws PubHrng did not so specify. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Manager explained that all backup material was not made available to Council members. He recommended carrying the matter over to the first meeting in April. There were no objections from the appellants. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Hamel to reschedule the hearings on the appeal at the April 14, 1975 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. e C. Echo Hollow West PUD - Enforcement Action (0200) Manager read February 11, 1975 memo from the planning department (copies previously distributed to Council members) reviewing the history of the Echo Hollow planned unit development and a detailed list of work yet to be completed. He noted that the project had changed ownership since its initiation resulting in some confusion and some of the problems. Public hearing was opened. Larry Cooley, 241 East Broadway, attorney representing Joe Green, owner and de- veloper, said that the majority of'the items yet to be completed would'be taken care of within the six months enforcement period. However, he questioned the need for relocation of the mail boxes (Item 7). He said they could be moved if the Council wished, but the developer was not aware of any reason requiring their relocation. He noted the sidewalks had not been installed because truck access was required until completion of construction. They would be put in when that was completed, he said. With regard to the swimming pool and equipment (Item 3), Mr. Cooley recognized that the pool was included in the original plans but noted that the planning department at one time thought it impractical because Echo Hollow pool was so near. Alternatives had been presented previously, he said, but not followed through. He thought something could be worked out, but he was not saying the pool would be installed as shown in the plans. With regard to Item 2 requiring shutters and under-window accent panels on all buildings, Mr. Cooley said they were not contained in the working drawings and because it was not known what they were he felt they should not be a condition imposed by the Council. Also, he felt this "extra" on the outside of the buildings would only add to the cost and be passed on to the tenants in higher rents. He asked also that Item 1 requiring remedial work on the sanitary sewer system not be made a condition of project completion. He noted agreement with the city dated March 6, 1973 giving the city the right to test the lines to determine whether they were working properly. He said inadequate slope in some of the lines at time of their installation did not meet specifications spelled out by the build- ing code. However, he said Mr. Green had had the lines checked by a registered civil engineer, they do work, and under the terms of the March 6~ 1973 agreement that was all the city expected. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. In ans.wer to Councilman Murray with regard to alternatives on the mailboxes, window accents, and the swimming pool, Jim Saul, planner, said the relocation of the mailboxes was recommended because they were placed where there was sup- posed to be a sidewalk. He said he had no knowledge of the alternatives on the swimming pool mentioned. It was approved as a part of the original plans 3/10/75 - 2 '. JOb e .: (0437)