1968 339- 485 _ 1-8 to 4-15-1968

Browse Search

450 Permit hearing just concluded, this matter was scheduled for discussion as part of the entire project. It was also noted, Planning Commission in considering the Tentative Map sub- mitted for this development, recommended several exceptions to the Subdivision Ordinance to Council for approval, and one condition now being protested by the Leo Development Company. Letter of protest from Leo Development Company read in full concerning re- commendation that a corner of Fox Court, East cul-de-sac be out off to enable additional parking in the cul-de-sac; objection based on their feeling that they should not have to assume all the expenses involved because of (1) having planted a tree at the cost of $300 in this area whichuould have to be re- moved, and (2) additional parking spaces being required would benefit neigh - bons asmuch as their own tenants. It was further stated existing development had caused no parking problems in the area, and proposed plan allowed for more parking than required. Planning Director reviewed alternate plans which had been considered but that Fire Department recommended the one illustrated. In reply to questions concerning use of basement parking spaces, Planning Director advised it would be difficult to state whether more difficult maneuvering made them less de- sirable. In reply to Council questioning as to tree planting mentioned in Applicant's letter of protest. - Mr. Leps advised parking problems thoroughly reviewed during hearings on the original Planned Development Permit and felt parking arrangements in townhouse plan- ning considered adequate, so could not see why deve- lopers should be penalized when additional parking spaces would be used by at least half of adjacent property for parking, and their feeling why they should not bear the full costs if this plan approved by Council. He further reviewed basement parking plan and stressed fact it was proven tenants did prefer off-street park- ing in this manner with convenience of elevators rather on -street parking. Councilman Keckley favored additional parking requirement recommended to offset parking problems in the future, but indicated his agreement that cost sharing seemed reasonable as additional parking proposed would be used by public. Acting City Attorney advised assessment district proceedings might be intitiated to make possible a sharing of costs by property owners, but also might not be practical for a small district. Planning Director advised additional on -street parking spaces being requested to augment the absence of spaces caused by driveways into the townhouses. Councilman Keckley questioned whether applicant would be willing to share 50% of costs with the -- City and was assured applicants would be willing to do so. Mr. John Corvi, owner of property adjacent to this pro- posed development, stated he failed to see the need of additional on -street parking since proposed townhouses have double garages and the additional parking spaces being requested in this cul-de-sac are unneessary and t'.g 18 *