03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.478 1495 . - 1609 1642 - adopted it would supersede the three policy s~atements.in this plan. He suggested however moving the qualifying statement from the beginning of Section II to the "Adopted City Policies" portion of the section to avoid confusion. Councilman Murray asked if his assumption would be correct that part of the process in adoption of any transportation plan would be careful analysis of the General Plan as well as the statement on Community Goals. Manager answered~in the affirmative. Councilwoman Campbell noted her concern that long-range transportation planning might not consider the effort. in this Plan and the opinions of the Laurel Hill people. Mayor Anderson wondered whether Items C-l and 3 (no 'arterial connection between Glenwood interchange to 30th, and no direct access from Spring Boulevard or 30th) were the result of ItemC-2 (no arterial to run through the valley floor). Mr. McGuinness answered that each item dealt with a different aspect. The first dealt with the hillside area, the second with the valley floor, and the third was intended to deal with an unnecessary con- nection which they' felt, if allowed would eventually link 30th with Spring Boulevard and perhaps take heavy traffic through the valley as a matter of convenience. The Mayor wondered whether Item C-4(street design should reflect designation of streets and mandatory street design standard should be avoided) would conflict with general city policy. Manager explained that standard street designs were patterned after development along streets with variations according to topographic circumstances. The subdivision ordinance governed street widths and sidewalks and was the basis for making variations. . Planning Director said street patterns were set as a' normal course of subdivision approval. In the case of hillside subdivision, the Commission waived requirements. where they could not apply. In that respect, he said, completion of the South Hills study would aid in providing better standards for hillside development. He added that Public Works saw no problem with in- clusion of that statement. Councilwoman Beal wondered then whether this item was necessary if there was no mandatory street design for hillsides. Manager suggested the intent of the wording was to indicate that the exception should be' the rule - compliance with design standards was accepted un- less there was a reason for variation. He thought the Laurel Hill people wanted to emphasize the possibility that variations in street design in certain instances might be more ad- vantageous .than followin~ set standards. Mrs. Beal asked the intent of Items C-5,6,7 (provision for adequate off-street parking, consideration of east-west traffic' movements, and careful attention to traffic movement to areas outside the valley). Planning Director said a very large portion of.the southern part of the valley was undeveloped. As it did develop it would result in people living farther away from main traffic collectors. So it was important that traffic routes es- tablished create t~e least damage to existing reside?tial development. Councilman Hershner asked about improved traffic routes out of Laurel. Hill area other than Franklin Boulevard. Manager pointed out the diagrams included in the Plan showing streets in the valley and their connections to other areas. Mayor Anderson referred to Section V - Relationship to City, ItemC-3 '(provision for "bi-annual" review) and asked whether it would be encumbent upon the City to inhiate biennial review. Manager answered that the Plan did not so indicate but it would be assumed that every other year it would be an item for discussion in budget preparation, or staff time could be provided to assist with review without budgeted funds. Planning Director noted the wording provided that the City would "assist" the neighborhood group in review. He added that this group had utilized the least amount of City funds of any other neighborhood group in its work, raising all of the funds for preparation of the Plan itself. The Mayor however wanted to know if the City would be ..legally obligated to go through a biennial review. He felt if that were the case and a review in two years was not made then the City would be liable. Planning Director thought if that policy statement was adopted, the City would be obligated. He felt the review essential because the Plan would be the first of several and would give a better understanding of how to work with neighborhood planning. . . . Councilman Murray pointed out that neighborhood organization policy did charge the groups with resonsibility for reviewing their own plans and planning processes, and further obligated the planning staff to assist within budgetary limitations. Councilwoman Campbell wondered if the Association felt it should be informed of all social welfare programs in the city, or just those in the Laurel Hill valley (Section V, Item C-2). Also, if they were thinking in terms of conditional use for such operations as Halfway House, etc. Mr. McGuinness answered that that policy directed itself to close co~ordination between the City and the Association on things considered sensitive, that is, general social services, evolving situations, etc. Manager. said ,his understanding was that any proposed program that would affect land use in the valley would be referred to the Association prior to public hearing to give those people an opportunity for input both to the staff and at ,the hearing. He did not think the intention was to refer every social program in the City to the Laurel Hill Association. Mrs. Campbell suggested then the addition of the wo'rds "within the valley" after the word "project" in the second line of Section V, Item C-2. 74 3/11/74 - 7