02/27/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Keller said he could understand the frustration of Council in justifying how the money is spent, noting there were simply not enough dollars available. He noted the federal tax dollars coming from Washington, D.C. to this City and the necessity for such things as more housing for the citizens. He said that even though some of the items seemed small in amounts, if some of those small amounts were used to rehabilitate homes, he would feel more comfortable with the program. He felt the City had an obligation also, to spend the dollars in the best possible way. In response, Mr. Delay said CDC had targeted money to rehabilitate housing to the maximum extent it was capable of administering. e Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, to approve the Community Development Block Grant application for 1978-79 as presented. Motion carried with all councilors present voting aye except Mr. Haws voting no. B. Appeal by Hearings Official Re: Preliminary Approval of Tree House PUD located in area east of Blanton Road, south of 38th Avenue, south of 35th Avenue and southwest of Monroe Street (PO 77-9) Approved by Hearings Official January 19, 1978. Manager noted loca- tion of the proposed Treehouse PUD, which would comprise 122 units located on approximately 40 acres. The matter was being appealed by the Crest Drive Neighborhood Association. Jim Saul said this was the preliminary approval, the second stage ~ . of the PUD process. Diagrammatic approval had been given by the ~ Planning Commission October 4, 1977. He noted the differences of the two stages in the PUD process. The purpose of the first stage was to evaluate off-site impact of the development, with particular attention paid to the impact of the development on a wide variety of services. The purpose of the second stage was oriented to on-site considerations as to how the development relates to the site. The only off-site question in the second stage would be a question of building design and its effect on adjacent property. This development was considered by the Hearings Official January 19. On January 29, it was granted preliminary approval, subject to a number of conditions. The appeal was submitted February 9. Mr. Saul said the testimony council would be hearing this evening must be limited to specific items in the appeal and only those items heard at the Hearings Official level, and how the Hearings Official may have erred. He said there were three major issues in the appeal: (1) On-site geology conditions; (2) how any conditions that might be established by an expert might be enforced in building permit stage; and (3) the Amazon drainage adequacy. He said in regard to the latter, it is not a legitimate consideration, as it was evaluated at the first stage and would not pertain to the preliminary approval. If that matter were ~o be addressed, it should have been appealed at the first stage. He noted again the second stage, preliminary approval, was for on-site considerations. The Hearings Official had granted preliminary approval subject to conditions, and if those conditions . were not fulfilled or were voided, then the approval would be voided. ~ 2/27/78--4 128