06/26/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Bradley said he had heard the emphasis on priority of saving e lives. He felt in that light, passing the ordinance would be a relaxation of sprinkler systems and lives would be more protected by the present ordinance. He was going to vote no on the ordinance for that reason, although he did favor the other proposals. Assistant Manager noted the proposal of requiring smoke detectors is really a warning system that sprinkler systems do not provide. He felt it tended to be more a trade-off than a relaxation of present standards. Mr. Delay encouraged Mr. Bradley to reconsider his stance. He said there may be a relaxation in costs, but not in reasonable protection, and Council had a commitment to protect the health and safety of the citizens. Vote was taken on the motion which carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Hamel moved, seconded by Mr. Bradley, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors pesent voting aye, except Mr. Williams voting no, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18213. Assistant Manager noted the amendments as suggested by Council and Ms. Niven would be brought back before Council at the July 10 meeting for consideration. A short recess was taken. e B. Appeal of Hearings Official Diagrammatic Approval, Located East of Fairway Loop and South of Eastwood Lane (Fairway Loop PUO) (PO 78-7) Approved by Hearings Official May 9, 1978. Jim Saul, planner, said the proposed PUD involves 65 units on 6.9 acres located behind (west) of Reed & Cross. Diagrammatic approval was granted May 19, 1978, subject to conditions. The only issue raised in the appeal involved a change in the location of traffic diverter on Fairway Loop. Diverters presently are installed at Eastwood and Southwood on Fairway Loop to prevent southbound travel. The Traffic Engineer recommended, and the Hearings Official adopted the recommendation, that the southerly diverter be moved northward a sufficient distance to allow southbound movement from this development on Fairway Loop to Southwood. That shift would not change the basic status of Fairway Loop, since overall southbound traffic would still be precluded. However, if that change were not made, all of the traffic from this development would have to exit onto Eastwood Lane. The appellants o~ect to this modification of the existing diverters. He noted that with the present zoning the development could accommodate up to ten units per acre. Mr. Saul distributed a map to Council to explain the change in the diverter system, with the exits for the proposed development. He noted that Condition No.1 of the Findings and Conclusion of the Hearings Official made approval contingent upon subsequent review of the change in traffic. Council is limited to the sole issue in the appeal of the - 6/26/78--7 4~1