CC MIIN 1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

� T �t✓�.� .. � 3�7 4'� , , � Rober,t F. Cawley, 780 Bain Place, appellant, ob�ected to a street being cut chrough Bain Place and sug9ested better access would be possible if the street were constructed from Glenwood to Canyon. , Mr Cawley asked how it is possible that the Council recently dem ed a Planned Um t Development for the subJect property for 10 units and that now 11 standard lots on a standard street are being proposed for the same property. , It was explained that the proposed development meets the require- ments for standard streets and lots already established, �nd since no exceptions are required or requested, no public heariny � necessary. It was explained further that the developer acquirecl' r an additional strip of land which permits him to develop his � property in accordance with City requirements and allows for an additional standard unit The property which might permit a street on Glenwood is not for sale and not needed in order for the developer to construct his development within the law. J�m Williams 47 Bradshaw Terrace, expressed concern about the Canyon Road intersection and suggested the street might be safer if it deade�ded at Canyon Road. Mr. Schroeter and Public Works Director Pusich advised that it is proposed that a level pad be ' constructed to improve visibility for waiting autortabile'drtvers a,t Canyon Road and that if the street were deadended at Canyon Road', the cul de sac would be too long to meet City requirements. Mr. Fales stated for the record that Canyon Road is an "abortion" with regard to safe, sane traffic engineering. 'Mr. Pus`ich ob- served that Canyon Road residents have indicated they do not want the road improved , Herb Frahm, 2260 Bay Road, civil engineer representing Stekoll ' Development Corporation, urged that the decision of the Planning Cortom ssion be upheld and the appeal denied, notirig that the sub- d�vision map introduced into evidence at the time of eminent ' domarn proceedings when the City attempted to acquire the property for park purposes was almost identical to the proposed development. Mr. frahm advised that Stekoll suggested the Planned Unit Develop- ment, which was denied on February 2, 1976, in the belief that it was a better, more interesting des�gn for the property, but since � ' it was not approved, the development submitted which meets require- j ments for standard lots and streets was submitted in order that 9 the property might be developed. ' , � ' � Mr. Purvis, 816 Bain Place, asked why no hearing was required on ; the proposed development Mr Schricker explained that the State � Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances set standards for develop- ment. The proposed development meets all the required standards' 1 and therefore, no hearing �s necessary, noting that the Planning � Comm ssion has determined that all criteria have been met ' � Gordon Ewing, 3619 Glenwood, recalled comnents made regarding width ' of access roads and drainage being problems. It was explained that �' the proposed roads are public streets of standard width while the PUD contained private streets of substandard width and that drainage , ts not a problem. ' , � _ � , 1 } � Reg.Mtg. _ , 5/10/76 , . �