|
<br />.....
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />/3
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />F
<br />I;
<br />jl,
<br />
<br />plan has not been reviewed by the Planning Commission. He called attention to the original
<br />app;Lication of ERA for grq.nt for the mall work which included pedestrian lights 8 to 10 ' feet
<br />high, and reiterated his previous arguments against installation of the lighting proposed in
<br />Plan I.
<br />
<br />, '
<br />John Reynolds, 290 East 37th Avenue, said he feels design review is clearly justified, and
<br />that the level of lighting is twice the illumination'level for residential usage (referring
<br />to upstairs living quarters in the downtown area) as designated by the Electrical Engineer-
<br />ing Society. ' ' " ,
<br />
<br />Charles Potterf, 420 East 3rd Avenue, again protested the method of financing the' project.
<br />He said he feels the people benefiting from the lights in the downtown area should pay for
<br />the installation~and that any light, whatever type, should not be installed at taxpayers'
<br />expense, and cited tax expenditures on lighting and police patrol in the do~ntown district.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Wilmot Gilland, 1670 Fairmount Boulevard, agreed with Mr. Potterf's'commentsand urged review
<br />of the plan by architects expert in the field of illumination, because once the installation
<br />is ,accomplished they would be difficult to remove. He said he feels the high intensity light-
<br />ing would tend to separate the core area more from adjacent areas rather than connecting it.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />James LOngl'lOod, 2633 Spring Boulevard, newly appointed member of the Planning Commission, said
<br />he was surprised to find the proposed mall lighting had not been reviewed by the Commission.
<br />He explined it was brought up at a recent Commission meeting because of opposition which had
<br />developed in the Council's consideration, and the Commission denied by ,a 4-3 vote a motion
<br />that the issue be referred to the Design Review Committee.
<br />
<br />Howard Bonnett, 775 East 22nd Avenue, Planning Commissi~n member, said he feels in view of
<br />the recent EWEB .rate increase that some of the monies spent should be for the type lighting
<br />desired by those people paying for it, rather than the harsh high-level lighting.
<br />
<br />James Pearson, president of the Planning Commission, explained the action referre~ to by
<br />Mr. Longwood in considering the mall lighting - that opinion was split 3-3 on the Commission
<br />as to whether to invite the Council to refer the matter to the Commission, and on a motion
<br />to refer it instead to the ERA Design Review Committee he had voted "no" breaking ~he tie
<br />because he felt it had been considered at length by the Council and that it would not be
<br />appropriate for the Planning Commission without study to recommend a course of action.
<br />
<br />Bob Thomas, staff member of ERA, explained the item included in the grant appiication for the
<br />mall referred to by Mr. Poticha was for accerit lighting only, not street lighting.
<br />
<br />Councilman Williams said he had been advised by a member of, the Renewal Agency that there is
<br />a February 15, 1972 d~adline for a decision on the lighting because of the scheduling of
<br />street widening and related work in the mall area.
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mrs. Campbell said she agrees with the public testimony opposing the.high-level fighting and
<br />that the cost factor is being given too much consideration in view of the investment in the
<br />mall already. She moved to have the entire issue referred to the ERA Design Review Committee,
<br />but the motion was ruled out of order because of a motion on the floor for approva1.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal questioned remarks made with ,regard to financing the lights, and M,anager explained
<br />that EWEB makes the capital expenditure invested in the street light system, and that amount
<br />is completely recovered from the City over a 15-year period.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr in answer to Mr. Bonnett's comments with regard to EWEB rates, explained the
<br />plan proposed is the third lowest in terms of power consumption.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />C. Condemnation Settlement, Ridenour, West Amazon Expressway - City Council authorized
<br />condemnation of property in the ownership of Mr. and Mrs. Donald Ridenour for right-
<br />of-way for West Amazon Expressway. The amount offered was $3,500.00. Attorney has
<br />now proposed settlement for $3,878.00, the amount of appraisal made at Ridernour's
<br />direction. Staff recommended settlement at $3,878.00.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov to approve the recommendation. Motion
<br />carried.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />1/19/72
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />D. HUD Application, Exchange Open-Space Riverfront Properties, Raup/Brown - Open-space
<br />funds were used to purchase the Raup property on which there were several buildings.
<br />HUD requires clearance of all buildings from properties purchased with open~space
<br />funds, and this was done on the Raup property except the house which is rented to Child
<br />Care, Inc., and being used for a day care center and two small buildings used to store
<br />park equipment. Final settlement is held pending removal of those buildings ~
<br />
<br />Staff proposes making comndtment to HUD to remove the two warehouses and the house
<br />from the Raup property if a two-year extension is considered and settlement made and
<br />funds received. Also, staff proposes exchangecxfif land of equal value purchased with
<br />the Brcwn property for the land on which the buildings are located so their use can
<br />be continued: An application to this effect would be submitted to HUD for approval.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. ,Gribskov to approve submission of the application.
<br />Motion carried.
<br />
<br />Comm
<br />J./19/72
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />1/24/72 - 6
<br />
<br />...,j
<br />
|