|
<br />Councilman Wood asked, if approval is given to the.. entire proj ect, what would happen
<br />should it be found fire protection is not adequate and unstable soil conditions exist.
<br />Manager replied that one of the conditions of approval would be that the developer
<br />meet' fire protection requirements in the Code as the project develops - manner;~in
<br />which buildings are developed, inter~al,protection"etc. If unstable soil conditions
<br />are discovered during construction, building insp~ction would require proper founda-
<br />tions or pr~hibit use of unstable.site~. He said there are ~o requirements in the
<br />preliminary' approval with regard to specific roof . materials, this in answe:r. to COilllC,il-
<br />man Wood's inquiry about use of cedar shakes. There may be in final approval, depend-
<br />ing on whether there are Code changes which are not anticipated at this time..
<br />
<br />,:11-
<br />,'='
<br />
<br />~rs. Beal !I:lov~d sec~nde.4, by M+'. William~, to uphold the Planning Commission
<br />preliminary approval of.Phase I only and geny the appeal. '
<br />
<br />Councilman Willia~s noted th~ttthe proposed density for the project is below that of
<br />the 'interim density, limitatl?n for this area, and he.4uestioned,~hether ~he,interim
<br />density within the urban'service boundary wou~d ever be reduced from that limit.
<br />~o do so, he felt, w?uld be encouraging the concept of urban sprawl. He was concerned
<br />with discouragiIfg an outstanding plan of this nature which was presented'with no sub-
<br />stantive objections. '
<br />
<br />- . .
<br />Councilman Murray wondered what' kinds of issues might arise from the South Hills
<br />study which might conflict with the proposal. Planning Director answered that density
<br />questions as they re~ate to transportation. have not been answered, developments on
<br />.slopes, school enrollment and_locat~on, mass transit ope~a!ion, tr~sition between
<br />rural' and urban areas - ali are concerns applying to. this particular <:irea. n Som~ areas
<br />may accommodate more than the interim density, others may have to.be cut back.
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Beal ,noted general awareness of the .1990 Plan,'s having tq. be "filled out"
<br />by such studies as' that in the South' Hills. She thought it better to await the re-
<br />sults of that study rather than make commitments to traffic patterns, sewage, fire
<br />protection, schools for ten years ahead. Councilman Wood could see no conflict with
<br />-the 1990 Plan. He felt preliminary approval of the entire project would give school
<br />district and mass transit district an opportunity to plan more adequately for needs
<br />in the area.
<br />
<br />, ;
<br />
<br />Vote was 'taken on the. motion to deny the appeal and give preliminary approval
<br />to Phase I ,of Edgewood West III only. Motion defeated, Councilmen Beal,
<br />Cam!),bell ,<,~nd, 'M';IT'ray voting <:lye; Councilmen. Williams, MpDonald, Wood,. and
<br />Mayor Anderson voting no; Councilman Hershner abstaining.
<br />
<br />. , " .
<br />It was understood the ,appeaiwould be scheduled for discussion at a joint meeting of
<br />the Council 9nd Planning Gommission scheduled f9r Monday, May 21, 1973.
<br />
<br />B. Vacation, Chula Vista Boulevard and Union Avenue south of East 27th, north of East
<br />30th, and west of Central Boulevard
<br />plaiming G.?JIlITli1?sion recom~ended approval on January 29, 1973.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Public liearing was opened.
<br />
<br />H. G.. Chickering, 1190 West 7th Avenue, representing Arlene Thomas, owner of abutting
<br />property, called attention;tohis opinion registered with Public Works ,'and Planning
<br />with regard to access for construction around the slope and location of sewers in the
<br />right-of-way reverting to the abutting~roperty. Manager said any sewer .constructed
<br />would be for service to abutting private property. Half of the street"'will go into
<br />City ownership since it lies along Laurelwood Golf Course. He didn't anticipate any
<br />problem, feeling sewer location could be worked out on either ownership. With regard
<br />to vacation 'of slope easement, Manager said it could be'vacated since there evidently
<br />is no road to be constructed.
<br />
<br />Council Bill No. 243 - Vacating Chula Vista 'Boulevard and Union Avenue south
<br />of East 27th Avenue, north of East 30th Avenue, and west
<br />of Central Boulevard, was read the first time by council
<br />bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be
<br />read in full.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill by read the second time by
<br />council bill number only, with unanimous consent of. the Council" and. that enactment
<br />be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the
<br />second time by council bill number only.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be approved and given final
<br />passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared
<br />passed and numbered 16776.
<br />
<br />'42.
<br />
<br />5/14/73 - 2
<br />
|