|
- 40,7�
<br /> -, �_ �_ .,.- -� . -. - _
<br /> Richar�d Gardella attorney representing the applicent, Nils Haga,
<br /> referred to his previous testimony given on September 19, stating
<br /> that the proposed is'a good one for an awkward s�te
<br /> He noted that certain suggestions of the Planning Department have
<br /> improved the design; trees to be saved arid m�m mized
<br /> , the quaritity of asphalt.� In response to.questions, Mr Gardella
<br /> stated'that the original proposal involved`a duplex`development and
<br /> use of a cul de sac, that he believed the suggested,elim�nation of
<br /> the cul de�sac and other changes came from the�Planning Department,
<br /> and'that the development`complies with Building Code requirements.
<br /> Discussion followed and Schoenfeld „City Attorney Scli'ricker
<br /> and Mr. Gardella comm'en'ted replied`to questions'concerning pro-
<br /> vision for draina9e, recourse of the_C�ty with regard to protection
<br /> of trees,_the fact that„trees`are included in the P1'an`arid that �
<br /> reference to trees'in the conditions is not necessary, the location
<br /> of_trees on the s�te, the anticipated street,�mprovements, and ,
<br /> whether percentage�of benefit is a factor' rn`defermini`ng cos't of
<br /> improvements ' -
<br /> �..rc
<br /> Bob F��lippi; 84 Central, owner of a'duplex, referred to two petitions
<br /> which he f�led,previously and to his comments of September 19, all
<br /> in opposition`to the proposed development Mr Filippi stated that
<br /> people cannot afford to buy such a large development while they can
<br /> afford to'invest in duplexes. 'He stated he -is�concerned about in-
<br /> creased traffic, drainage problems", neighborliood quality,�sewage V
<br /> capacity and the water shortage Mr FillppT ur9ed Counctl to re,7ect
<br /> the application and consider only duplex development,for the sub�ect
<br /> � site ' - �_" _ ` _ . „ �_ - ' - . . _ ,
<br /> - . ,,. . _, ,.. � -
<br /> � In response to quest�on,'Mr. Schoenfel�d'commented on the history of
<br /> development proposals,submitted for the sub�ect site, stating that
<br /> ` expert information regarding drainage must come from competent persons
<br /> in the Public Works Department
<br /> _ .� '
<br /> Mary Jane Filippi, 84 Central, owner'o'f a duplex, stated she believes
<br /> no provision was made in the proposed development for adequate drain-
<br /> age, suggested that street parking problems would increase if the
<br /> development-is approved urged that Council consider duplex de-
<br /> velopment for the sub�ect site . -
<br /> , , ., -
<br /> Statement was made"that apparently tha'prospect�ve neighbors are not
<br /> familiar with the proposed development' It was.pointed out,that the
<br /> application for a P7anned Development Permit (PDP) is`for 12 individ-
<br /> ually,owned single-family condominum homes; that the_same property,
<br /> could accommodate 11=12 u m ts, that prospec'tive buyers would
<br /> own their own homes and lots, owning and maintaining the common
<br /> areas',7ointly,_that adequate parki'ng_would be�a requ7rement�of the
<br /> PDP in addition_to driveway parkin9, that�new'individuaily'owned
<br /> houses could be expected to be mostly owner-occupied while a duplex
<br /> development necessarily implies at least half of the_units would be_
<br /> rentals, that there would`be no difference between the�proposed-de-
<br /> - velopment,and duplex deve7opment of"the same'p'rope"rty�with regard
<br /> to traffic, water use or use of sewage capacity
<br /> , City Attorney Schricker recommended'that'a report 'regarding"drainage
<br /> be requested from the Department of Public Works which has the neces-
<br /> sary expertise to comment on that aspect of the proposed development
<br /> -2- Reg Mtg
<br /> 10/3/77
<br /> �� �
<br />
|