08/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, buildings over the entire property permits smaller scattered parking sites with traffic coming together at one egress point. The design was changed from preliminary plans also - with regard to recreational areas, he said, a swimming pool adjacent to the property line haying been deleted. It was hoped the units would be occupied by young couples and , older adults with a minimum of children so that recreational facilities within the neigh- I borhood would be sufficient. Mr. Johnston said that because of the much better location I .- I of dwellings scattered over the site, rather than concentration in one area with one \ portion of the property left in open space, it was felt reduction in density was not so I critical. It met the PUO and 1990 Plan density requirements. Manager added that the I Planning Commission itself was concerned about the crowded arrangements of the original , " design. They' felt this design was a great improvement even though the unit count remained I ,I the same. 'I I I . (O~CIO) l Mr. Brabham explained that people protesting the preliminary plans at the Planning Commission 1 : earlier consideration of the project were under the impression they ,had appealed. And he , didn't understand the statement that the developer did not anticipate families with too , many children since about half the units planned would be three-bedroom. With regard to i recreational facilities, he said there were none nearer than the Sheldon Community Center. t , ! Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission final approval of the Norkenzie and Mil1da pun and that proposed findings be prepared and brought t.o.,t.he .Council- for consideration at a later time. ~.." e In making the motion Mr. Williams set forth some of the issues that he said might be a part of the findings: The appellant presented no evidence that the Planning Commission had I I erred in giving final approval; the density provisions of the project were within those , ,. set by the 1990 Plan and requirements for the RE PO zone; layout of the buildings appeared I compatible and .should be acceptable to the surrounding residential community; and in terms I of overall housing situation in the city the subject property appeared to s~tisfy the need I for using undeveloped residential land. , l , (;Q3'?/) Councilwoman Campbell asked what kind of lever the city had to require maintenance of condominium properties. Manager said that there is contractual arrangement with the developer regarding his meeting commitments. If the units are sold to individuals then a homeowners' association would be fanned by the buyers and that association would have the responsibility for maintenance of the entire exterior portions of the project. Under : the arrangement the city could force maintenance or do the work and bill the association. I I Mr. Jo;mston added in response to further questioning from Mrs. Campbell that although there were no organized recreational areas within the project there were various open I spaces contiguous to the dwelling units. . I Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. - A short recess was taken. Councilman Hershner left the meeting. C. Bids ~Public Works Department - Various improvement projects (opened July 30, 1974) Cost to Amount Hsmi gf Bidder and Project Contract Cost Abutting Prop, Cost to City Budgeted SIDf.,,'ALK: I. In front of 2490 Agate Street (1088) 1. Devereaux .E, Pratt t Inc.......,....... I....... $ 981.00............ .4" Sidewalk....$ 22.50/Lin. Ft.....................O 2. Wildish Constructi!'n Company..................$ 1.467.00 COMPLETION DATE: September 15. 1974 .------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~----_._-----~--------------------------------------------------------. SANITARY SE'^'I:R: 2.. To serve Lots 5 through 10 of Point Thomas A\ldition (168) 1. 'Shur-Hay Contractors, Inc................... .$20.159.08............ .San.Swr.Lat....$ 0.075/Sq. Ft..............$ 9;100.00..............0 2. Dan Allsup Contractor. Inc................... $23.258.36 Service........$ 127.00/Each (City Property) 3. Wick Broa. Excavation.,...........,..........$25.0l2.00 4. Wildish Construction Company $31,019.00 COMPLIlTION DATE: October 1. 1974 , .---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Central Blvd. from 28th Avenue to S. 1200 ft. and between Central Blvd. & Spring Blvd, to serve all lots in Hunter's Heven Subdiviaion (427) 1- Wick Bros. Excavation....................... .$20.293.50........... ..San.Swe.Lat.... $ O.ll/Sq. Ft.............,......O -i . 2. Shut-Way Contractors. Inc.... ...... ; ... .. . . .. . . . $26.004.26 3. Dan Allsup Contractor. Inc,..................$34.466.20 4. Wildish Constru"'ction Company................ .$41.678.00 5 . Kenneth R. Bostick Construction Company......$71.623.00 COMPLETION DATE: October 1.,1974 .... -------------...----------------------------------------------------------------------.-..--------------------------------------------------------------~. 4. Within Mahalo Hilla 1st Addition (993) 1. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc.................;; .$47.316.00.'........... .San.Swr.Lat....$ - 0;275/Sq. Fe...................O 2. Wildiah Const~ction Company.................$5l.002.50 Service........$ 280.00/Each Storm Sewer....$ 510. aD/Lot COMPLETION DATE: October 1. 1974 _...____________~_.-:~-_~____~_______----- __ .___ _._... ______~----------_-_________________--------------------__._________________________ 0- 2,8 8/12/74 - 5 - -. --------~~ --.----------- . - ~------ .-- --~ < ..- . - _.... ...-___'___ . _0