03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. 0522 0558 e . 0980 1030 ,e 1050 1148 - ~ of way, sewer system peculiar to the Laurel Hill valley.. He stressed that the neighborhood group did not construct a plan contrary to the City's wishes nor develop it in a way that would result in a questionable program, and he hoped it would be considered in that spirit. He asked that members of the Association be allowed to answer questions during the Council's deliberations after public hearing was closed. Mr. Tussing remarked on the relationship of the Laurel Hill valley to the City and the limitation on growth in the area to the capacity of the sewer system. He felt permitting a density in the valley up to ten-units-per~acre as set out in the General Plan would re- sult in costly expansion of sewer services. Adoption of the proposed plan, he said, would seta definite policy and give a basis for proper planning. Mr. Kimball read a prepared statement and said the plan reflected years of work with various City departments. He said the recommendations in the Laurel Hill plan for the most part were also in the 1990 General Plan, one exception being the provision for resident home ownership in the valley, but that that was a neighborhood goal rather than policy. Neigh- borhood proposals with regard to traffic design and sidewalk construction, he said, although not specifically covered by the 1990 Plan, the group would likt to discuss further. He called attention to the need to protect the "weekend farmer," this provision of the Laurel Hill plan being in direct contradiction to the General Plan which specifically limited certain farming activities to areas some distance from the urban service boundary. Speaking specifically of policies recommended for adoption, Mr. Kimball stated the Associa- tion'sstrong feelings that the statements with regard to density.and transportation in the valley be adopted. He urged the density provisions be adopted to guide development in the valley until the South Hills study was finally accepted as City policy. And he pointed out the provisional nature of the policy with regard to traffic routes (Section II - Items C-l,2,3). They could be amended or replaced once a Citywide policy was established. This portion, he said, to the Laurel Hill citizens was the most important statement in the Plan. He noted the existing traffic routes bordering the valley, I-Sand 30th Avenue. He referred to specific provisions in the General Plan and statements in Community Goals adopted by the City saying traffic thoroughfares should bound a neighborhood rather than divide. The Association felt no special privilege was being requested nor that the valley was seeking isolation, only that there be specific application of widely accepted principles until there was an areawide transportation plan established. With regard to density and land use, Mr. Kimball called attention to the topography of the valley and its location in the urban service area. The recommended average density of four to the acre the Association felt would prevent overtaxing the sewer system and at the same time preserve the distinct character of the neighborhood. He added that this policy recom- mendation would call for judgmental decisions as would be required in any significant plan- ning decision. Mr. Kimball concluded by saying that he thought the Plan would show all neighborhoods the way to work the the City and County in developing specific areas, and planning would be based op recognition of those neighborhoods. Mrs. Minor read a prepared statement of results of her study on the extent and type of noise pollution in the Laurel Hill valley. She recommended construction of embankments higher than freeways and railroads with plantings to deflect sound currents and noise. She fel t it would also diminish air pollution and the problem of solid waste disposal if organic wastes were used for such construction. Also speaking in favor of the Laurel Hill Plan were Francis Reithel, 2600 Floral Hill Drive; Edna Shirey, 3217 Whitten Drive, representing the Crest Drive Citizens Association; Tom Krumm, 2712 Floral Hill Drive; and Nila Fisher, 3637 Avalon Avenue, representing the Active Bethel Citizens. Mr. Reithel read a prepared statement urging use of planning as delineated ln the Laurel Hill plan as a tool in solution to present-day urban crises. Mrs. Shirey also read a prepared statement supporting adoption of the Plan, indicating it would improve communica- tion between the City and citizens and should be considered valuable input to the develop- ment process. Mr. Krumm presented a Petition signed by six residents on Floral Hill Drive opposing any traffic c.ormector between Floral Hi 11 Drive and Spring Boul evard. Mrs. Fisher stated the. ABC's support of the Plan. Manager brought to the Council's attention a number of endorsements of the Plan submitted by residents ~f the L~urel Hill area. Also a letter of endorsement from the Executive Board of the Oak Hills Homeowners Association. Marjorie English, 1190 East 36th Avenue, objected to any land use changes in the valley which would preclude apartment construction. She noted the proximity of the valley to the University campus and said high density housing in that area would be appropriate. She also felt density requi!ements in the Laurel Hill area 'should be consi?tent with that in other neighborh~ods of the city. Warren Wyseth, Route 6, Box 1218, expressed concern about limitation on access to areas out- side the city having no access now but with the potential for future development. ,2. 3/11/74 - S