|
<br />1
<br />f
<br />I
<br />I
<br />i
<br />
<br />l
<br />
<br />plan has not been reviet<led by the Planning Commission. He called attention to the original
<br />application of ERA for grant 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 1.
<br />
<br />" c ' 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 al~a should pay for
<br />the installation, and that any light 9 whatever type, should not be installed at taxpayers'
<br />expense, and cited tax expenditures on lighting and police patrol in the downtown district.
<br />
<br />Wilmot Gilland, 1670 Fairmount Boulevard, agreed with Mr. Potterf's comments and 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 />James Longwood, 2633 Spring Boulevard, newly appointed meni>er 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 Co~cil'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 />.
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />Howard Bonnett, 775 East 22nd Avenue, Planning Commission member, said he feels in view of
<br />the recent EtiEB 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 referred 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 the 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 acti&.
<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 accent lighting only, not street lighting.
<br />
<br />~j
<br />Councilman William:; s~:lid he had been advised by a member of the Renewal Agency that there is
<br />a February 15, 1972 deadline 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 />e
<br />
<br />Mrs. Campbell said she agrees with the public testimony oPP9sing the high-level ligtlting 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 approval.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal questioned remarks made with regard to financing the lights, and Manager explained
<br />that EWEB makes the capital expenditure invested in the street light system, and that arrount
<br />is completely recovered from the City over a IS-year period.
<br />
<br />Councilman Mohr in answer to Mr. Bonnett,'s conunents with regard to EWEB rates, explained the
<br />plan proposed is the third lowest in terms of power consumption.
<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 Am.!zon Expressway. 2'he amount offered was $3,500.00. Attomey has
<br />now proposed settlement for $3,878.00, the aJnOtmtof appraisal made at Ridemour's
<br />direction. Staff recommended settlement at $3,878.00.
<br />
<br />Mr. WillialllS moved seconded b!1 Mr. Gribskov to approve the reCODllllSndation. Ifotion
<br />carried.
<br />
<br />COIllll
<br />1/19/72
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />D. BUD Application; Exchange Open-Space Riverfront Properties, Raup/Brown - Open-space
<br />ftmds were used to purchase, the Raul' property on which there were several buildings.
<br />BUD requires clearance of all buildings from' properties purchased ~ith open-sp.tce
<br />ftmds, and this was done on the Raul' property except the house which is rented to Child
<br />Care, Inc., ,and being used for a IUJII cue center and two small buildings used to store
<br />, I. ' .
<br />park equipment. Final settlement ts Jaeld pending removal of tbosebuildings. . '
<br />;. . . .
<br />
<br />Staff proposes making oomm:itment to BUD to remov,? the two ifareho&.lSes and the house
<br />from the Raul' property if a two-year ext~ion is considez*d and settlement made' and,
<br />funds received. Also, staff proposes exchange,~.f land of equal value purchased with
<br />the BrtMn propert'y 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 BUD for appro~al.
<br />
<br />Mr. williams moved seconded by Mr. Gribskov to approve submission of the app11cat:Lon.
<br />Notion carried. .
<br />
<br />COIllll
<br />1119/72
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />1.3
<br />
<br />J,fl4/72 ~ ,
<br />
|