12/12/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- the Hearings Official did approve, with the appeal now before Council. Mr. Saul reviewed the density statistics which included the existing Valley West development on 21 acres and the proposed development on 9.5 acres with a total of 30.5; the existing deve- lopment of dwelling units of 73, and the proposed development of 120 with a total of 193; the density points per acre on the existing development 97.3, with the proposed development of 294.7, for a total of 158.8. The submitted plan indicates the unit mix would be a combination of two and three bedrooms, with two to five units per building. Access to the site would be off Westleigh Street. The plan indicates open spaces and pedestrian paths between units, with two tennis courts adjacent to the existing Valley West swimming pool and recreation center. Open space would also be shared with single- family residences. He noted Mr. James Spickerman, Hearings Official, was present to answer questions. Mr. Saul said since this was the first appeal of the Hearings Official to come before Council under the new ordinance, he had distributed copies of the pertinent section which deals with appeals for City Council review. He said several aspects would be important to note: The appeal provisions of the Code specify the appeal is to be based on the record, and testimony in the appeal period is to be limited to items specified on the appeal statement; no new information is to be entered without a written request prior to the meeting and no such written request had been submitted; if City Council reverses the e He~rings Official.s opinion, it must specify the reasons for doing so. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Hearings Official staff notes and minutes of November 8,1977, were entered into the record by reference thereto. Public hearing was opened. Robert Bruce, 3737 Kevington, said under Section 9.512(7)(b) the City Council has addressed itself to concern for reasonable compatible development within the City. He felt this addition to Valley West was not a reasonable compatible development. His concern was with , the density in single versus multiple dwelling units. He felt the density points used did not take into consideration things which City Council should consider such as open space ratio, living space ratio, total car ratio, occupant/car ratio, floor area ratio, and recreation space ratio. He also stated the proposed development would cover approximately three acres of floor area alone on nine acres of available land, whereas the existing development occupies three acres of floor area on 21 acres, and again said that was not reasonably compatible. His second point in arguing the development was not reasonably compatible was with regard to streets. The pro- posed developer wishes to establish a private road system and separate maintenance, which would be entirely different than the currently existing development. He felt the reason the developer e wanted private streets was to build narrower streets that would 12/12/77 - 11 910