01/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

indicated that the citizens felt that the population density is only one of several factors that should be considered in making the deci- sion for approval of this PUD development. The neighborhood citi- - zens seem to be unanimously opposed to the project as they had had no opportunity to have any voice in the projected development. He added that the citizens were also concerned with the amount of in- creased traffic that would occur in the neighborhood and they felt that the percentage of increase in the traffic should be one of the major focuses of the inquiry. He said the main street entrance to the PUD development is unpaved and the citizens were concerned for the safety of the pedestrians in the area. He also indicated that he felt the impact on Sladden Park had been inadequately considered, in view of the fact that the developer an- nounced at the hearinq that he had planned to include no recreation facilities in the development. He said that if the development is approved, an effective planting screen that will shut out the noise and light, etc. from the surrounding neighborhood and which would make the development invisible as possible from the bike path should be re- quired, especially along the north and west boundaries. The citizens are concerned that street improvements will become necessary and the assessments that result therefrom should be only in the amount to which the property is actually enhanced and the developer should be required to pay the rest of the assessments for the street improve- ments. He said that it was felt that the developer should be re- quired to pay for the improvements in Sladden Park from the impact of the approximately 300 families who will be living in the development. e Alan Unkeles, 247 North Grand, speaking for the appellants, indicated again that the citizens felt there were inadequate staff findings before approval by the Planning Commission for this PUD development and also reiterated the concern that the promises made by the devel- oper should be enforced and the fact that the Planning Commission did not make any assurances that these promises would be adhered to. Mr. Unkeles then distributed to the Council members a proposed resolution that off-site approval for the proposed Rivers Edge be referred back to the Planning Commission for inclusion and/or reconsideration of the factors that had been listed in the resolution. Mike Safley, the developer for the Rivers Edge Planned Unit Development, introduced himself to Council indicating that he would be available to answer any questions. Clarence Ahernin, 143 North Adams Street, representing himself indicated he was concerned about the question of closing Lewis Street as there would be no entrance from the development from Sladden Park. Public hearing was closed there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Saul was asked to respond for the staff to some of the issues raised by the persons giving public testimony. He indicated that all of the questions raised were fully considered at the Planning Commis- e sion level. He said that the record and evidence fully supported the 1/10/77 - 7 (3