Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />Councilman Murray expressed opposition to any breach in the moratorium, feeling approval <br />of any annexation or zone change would se~iously affect the study to wh~ch the Council <br />was committed. Councilman McDonald wondered about the degree of hardshlp to the developers <br />if the annexation were delayed until completion of the study. Manager reminded Council <br />that the study mayor may not indicate reconsideration of definition of the Goodpasture <br />area as an opportunity area for large scale commercial uses. If the study indicated from <br />information gathered that that was not the best designation and made recommendation that <br />there should be changes, the consideration would have to be given to changes in the <br />General Plan. <br /> <br />F . 'Proposed PUC Rule re: Railroad Blockage of Grade Crossings - CopIes' of PUC notice <br />:of proposed adoption of rules with regard to blockage of grade crossings were <br />:previously distributed to Council members. Staff qu~stioned the proposal which <br />iwou1d allow blocking crossings for 20 continuous minutes between 10:00 p.m. and, <br />~6:00 a.m. (Item l(b)). Manager said a restriction of that duration should not be <br />., :p1aced upon the citizenry in view of the great deal of travel after 10:00 p.m. <br />;He felt 10 minutes maximum should be allowed, and five minutes would be enough <br />.most of the time. <br /> <br />-- -, "_,_w _ _. . ... '~__'.._~__..--...._~_......-._. .......~._,_ __. _"__"~~ _ _..~._'.- _._.~ _'___ ____ ________.__~ _._._"___ __._ ,..__._ <br /> <br />Staff also questioned the proposal that any train continuously IOOving in the same <br />'direction would not be subject to the 20-minute restriction (Item (2) (a)). There <br />.was the possibility 'of confusion between trains-traveling through a community and <br />switching operations. Manager suggested recommending modification to provide for <br />breaking trains to allow emergency vehicles to cross. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Councilman Wood referred to Item (3) in the notice and said it would seem to <br />iprovide for variances for a1lOOst any reason. There was no information in that <br />regard other than supposition that variances would be granted on certain sets of <br />conditions. <br /> <br />: Mr. Murray m wed seconded by Mr. Wood to submi t the suggested changes to the <br />!Pub1ic utility Commissioner. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />G. 'Petition for paving 25th Avenue from 220 feet east of Chaucer Way to the east <br />i4l5 feet, and sanitary sewer along the east boundary of Churchill Highlands 2nd <br />!Addition from between Strathmore Place and KevingtonAvenue to the north boundary <br />'of Churchill Heights . '\'! <br />:Property to be assessed for the improvements is entirely within the subdivision ex- <br />! cept 50% for paving 25th Avenue in the ownership of E~EB, and 22% for sanitary sewers, <br />: in the ownership of Radio Church of God. Approval was recommended.; Comm <br />iL/16/74 <br />~pprove <br /> <br />! Mr. Wood IOOved seconded by Mr. Keller to approve the peti tion. <br />:..!!.n.~~;i!!1ously . <br />.-~ "--"'__M~, . <br />----.--.--------....- ""'"'''''' .h.h......___._......_._ 0.:.'____.. ._.._. <br /> <br />Motion carried <br /> <br />1350 <br /> <br />_', .......J <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />'."','. <br />H. :Tree Cutting Ordinance - Copies were previously furnished Council members of <br />two ordinances which would restrict tree cutting within the City. Councilman <br />,Murray suggested appointment of an ad hoc committee to consider both ordinances <br />: (one prepared by himself and Councilmen Wood, the other by City Attorney) with <br />; the idea of combining them into one ordinanqe. He felt neither one completely <br />:answered what might be long-term interest in protecting vegetation, although <br />he felt the one they prepared was more comprehensive. In addition to prohibit- <br />:ing excessive trimming and providing for replacement policy, it would restrict <br />; cutting on the basis of size and require cutting permits. Staff prepared ordinance, <br />I . ", <br />he said, covered trees on private property only, and he felt some concern should <br />Ibe given to trees on public property. Neither did he agree wi~h staff's version <br />: wherein ci ty manager's decision on an appeal woul d be final and no provision <br />: for final determination by the Council. <br />1-............ _'.'__"'" ... '0_ ..._...__..'--.________...... ........ ... _. __'_' -'.~~".' _.__._...._.____.__..__... ._._ __.." <br /> <br />'..:.,," ._-.....). <br /> <br />'Mr.. Murray mdvedseconded by Mr. Wood to establish a short-time conference <br />. committee of the Council to work with staff to combine features of both <br />'ordinances and report back to the Council. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Comm <br />1/23/74 <br />Approve <br /> <br />_. <br /> <br />!Cbuncilwoman Beal hesitated about appointment of a committee at this poiht, <br />saying she would rather see staff work completed and an ordinance in final <br />'form first. She thought the Murray/WoOd version had stronger protective <br />quality and noted that it included a section on subdivisions. She agreed <br />: that protection was needed for trees on public property and that provision <br />. should be made for appeal from ci ty manager's decision. Also, she fel t that <br />EWEB should be required to have cutting permits when removing trees from <br />i their easements. <br /> <br /> <br />Councilman Murray said it was his idea that the Council committee would work <br />with staff to give some direction before starting redraft of an ordinance. <br /> <br />.------~.----.-----.-----~_........._- <br /> <br />~Co <br /> <br />1/28/74 - 13 <br />