01/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

findings made and the conclusions that were reached. Public testimony was taken before the Planning Commission in which many of these same e concerns were raised and to which the Planning Commission addressed ------ itself, taking them into consideration and making its decision to grant a diagrammatic approval for the PUD development. In addressing the issue of assessing the impact of the development on the neighbor- hood, the traffic concerns, and the street approaches, he indicated the City Code requires a judgement to be based on adequate facilities provided in any development and that this was clearly the case in this instance. He said the streets are completely adequate to handle the increased traffic, the streets being Van Buren, Adams, and Jackson, and that sidewalks were the only thing lacking. He also indicated there is now a petition pending for vacation of Loui s Avenue between Adams and Jackson and the city park. Hefel t the position should be taken that the traffic issue had been correctly determined by the Planning Commission. In regard to the relationship of the property development to the surrounding area Mr. Saul indicated that most of the surrounding area is in public ownership at this time. Regarding the concern over the vegetation in the area, Mr. Saul said that there are plans which indicate that most of the trees will be preserved. When a more detailed plan is submitted to the Planning Commission, the vegetation will be more closely looked at and again he reiterated that he felt the Planning Commission had made a sound decision in granting approval. Councilman Haws asked questions of the staff regarding the fact that there are no recreational facilities included in the development and e "- asked whether that should be a criterion in making a decision. He also asked what control there would be over the trees in the area and also about the 1974 promises made by the developer, how they relate to the question before the Council, and whether they were broken. Mr. Saul indicated that there was no requirement criterion for approving a PUD providing recreational facilities. The developer included in- tentions to provide "open spaces" but no recreational facilities such as a swimming pool or parks for the residents because of the cost implications of those facilities. The developer wanted to keep costs in housing down as there is a lack of low-cost housing in the area and to include those facilities would result in a higher cost for the housing. On the issue of the trees and vegetation, Mr. Saul reported that the plans indicate the existing major area trees are to be preserved along the northern boundary of the property and some at the southeast corner of the site would be removed. In regard to the 1974 promises made by the developer, Mr. Saul indicated some may not be fulfilled, i.e., he had projected 59 owner-occupied dwellings and 59 rental dwellings for the elderly, and both of those have been changed. An- other promise made in regard to the impact on the river, Mr: Safley said there would be no impact, he would retain the existing land- scape. Mr. Saul reported that in fact is what is being proposed in the diagrammatic stage. ,--. Councilman Lieuallen then asked how close the northern boundary of e the development would be to the bike path and what criterion could pt 1110/77 - 8