03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. McGuinness explained. the reason for this conc~rn was that the peopl~ of the valley felt .they were' always inv9lvedwith the size' of projects in the valley but never with who would use them. He suggested-different wording would be appropriate to limit the policy to only those things occurring in the valley. Mrs. Beal suggested addition of the words "or other projects which affect land use in the Laurel Hill valley" after the words "social welfare programs" in the third line of Section V, Item C-2. Betty Niven suggested the following, substitution for that item: "The City should communicate to the Laurel Hill Citizens Associa- tion any proposals by developers or sponsors of social welfare programs involving land use changes in the valley, so that the Association can contribute to their implementation." Mayor Anderson noted the significance of the Plan and said he supported most of its elements. However, he felt in adoption of City policy, because of its importance to deliberations of future City Councils and to the Laurel Hill people themselves, there should be a very clear understanding of the intent and meaning of the policy. He questioned several items wpich might call for further discussion between the Councilor a Council subcommittee and members of the Association. First, because the Laurel Hill Citizens Association itself may some day be superseded by anpther group or there is reorganization effecting change, he suggested that the group be referred to in the Plan as the "recognized neighborhood organization." With regard to Item II, Items C-l,2,3 (arterial routes), Mr. Anderson felt at this point they could be left out of the policy statements with the idea that there should more appropriately be individual public hearings and judgments made on each project separately. Item C-~ in the same section (street design) he felt could be reworded more effectively to better describe the intention. With regard to Section III, Item C-l (urban services), Mr. Anderson questioned what was m.eant by "alternative methods of providing urban services." He felt that statement could be made more explicit. He referred to Section V, Item C-2 and said he thought the statement should better describe what the city's responsibilities would be so far as com- munications with the neighborhood association. Item C-3,. he said, should indicate the exact procedure to be followed in any review of the Plan. Finally, Mr. Anderson said, he thought all of the policy statements in the Plan should be separated into a single document for adoption through formal resolution of the Council, with the statements of basic position, neighborhood goals, and proposals to comprise supplementary material so that future councils and future organizations would not misconstrue the intent of this Council - that the policy statements were adopted as policy, and that the positipn statements, goals, and proposals were to be considered separate from policy'. Councilman Murray suggested that action could be taken at this meeting if only changes in wording were to be considered. Mayor Anderson thought Council members might like to reflect on points brought out in the discussion and after discussion with representatives' of the Association bring the Plan back for a subsequent Council meeting. Councilman Williliams agreed, suggesting referral of the Plan to a Council subcpmmittee appointed by the Mayor to review language of the document, making changes to more precisely state its intent.. Councilman Murray returned to Section II, Items C-I, 2,3, and asked clarification of the Mayor's viewpoint. Mr. Anderson said he questioned how "locked in" the Council or the Association would want to be on specific projects in developing an overall transportation plan. He referred to Item C-7 which stated the importance of traffic patterns in the southern portion of the valley. And he wondered whether leaving Items 1 and 3 open now (no arterial through the valley and no direct access from 30th or Spring Boulevard) would provide options and would not necessitate overriding policy at a later time. Councilwoman Campbell said she thought that was clarified by the statement at the beginning of the. section which stated that the section was to provide sound guidelines until a systematic transporta- tion and traffic plan was developed. She saw no reason for having individual hearings on those items and added that. those were the most intensely felt and important to the people of the Laurel Hill valley. Councilman Keller found it difficult to accept the portion having to do with preventing an arterial through the valley or traffic connectors from 30th and Spring Boulevard because of the effect the policy might have on future planning in tbat area. He' suggested if. Items ::,.. C-l,2,3 were to be tied in with the modifying statement with regard to ad9ption of an over- all transportation plan, then that statement should be the first one under Item C.Mr.Keller commented on the potential growth in the valley if the present average is estimated at one unit per acre and the proposed density was four units per acre. He felt access for future residents of the area should be considered. Councilman Murray said he did not understand the reservations expressed since the Plan pre- cisely spelled out that policy statements on traffic were applicable only until a city-wide .transportation plan ruled them out. Furthermore, he said, the provision for biennial review of the Plan would take care of any future concerns. He felt any policy could be changed if it was so desired. He added that various comments in the Plan were within the General Plan .and the Coqmunity Goals statement and it seemed to be a particular application of general city policy. Councilman Hershner expressed his hesitancy on adoption of the Plan because of the statements on arterials and traffic connectors (Section II, Items C-l,2,3). He recognized those items were subject to adoption of a general transportation plan but thought it would be more .,~ 3/11/74- 8 .. 1741 . 1813 - --