Laserfiche WebLink
<br />20:8566 <br /> <br />Whereupon Mayor Scott declared the hearing open and Gordon Maddock, <br />37 E. Huntington Drive, spoke to the environmental impact - stating in <br />part the d'e sire of the purchaser to save as many trees as possible; <br />that Oakhurst Lane should remain a private street and that street <br />improvements shall not include curbs and gutters, however, he would <br />like to add to that condition recommended by the Planning Commission <br />that sidewalks also not be a part of the improvement. He added that <br />meetings have been held with the other property owners and that most <br />everyone was in favor of the proposed development, Staff noted that <br />any petitions or letters received concerning this tract were filed <br />before this revised map for 7 lots instead of 9. Discussion continued <br />on the setback, the block wall the subdivider desires to construct <br />along Colorado Boulevard at the property line and other tracts which <br />have been constructed by this developer. In response to a question <br />Mr. Maddock stated it is more economical to have all improvements put <br />in at one time. <br /> <br />Herbert I. Chambers, 280 Oakhurst Lane, stated in part that he would <br />be opposed to the tract if curbs, gutters and sidewalks were constructed. <br />He noted changes in the parking spaces 'for his six units which wi 11 <br />improve the on-street parking situation. That he is in favor of the <br />tract as proposed. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />George Lewis, 240 Oakhurst Lane, spoke in favor if the aesthetic effett <br />of the street remain as it is now - without curbs, gutters and <br />sidewalks. He was pleased with the proposed architecture and parking <br />facilities which are to be provided. Because it is a private street <br />he said in part that he felt all the property owners would cooperate <br />with the developers when it came time to repave the street. <br /> <br />Eleanor Chambers, 280 Oakhurst Lane, spoke in favor of the tract and <br />commended the developer for his willingness to cooperate with the <br />property owners; with his intention to maintain the rural atmosphere. <br /> <br />Mrs. Vernon Thill, 260 Oakhurst Lane, spoke in favor of the tract and <br />appreciated the intention to keep the street in its rural atmosphere. <br /> <br />No one else desiring to be heard the hearing was CLOSED on MOTION by <br />Councilman Saelid, seconded by Councilwoman Lauber and carried unani- <br />mously. <br /> <br />Councilman Helms asked the Planning Director to explain for the record <br />the status of another development - a planned residential development <br />for an exclusive entry off Oakhurst Lane, The Planning Director <br />stated in part that the developers are still working on it - that the <br />earthquake fault runs through this particular site - that the buildings <br />and pool have been relocated because of this -- ~hat there are other <br />problems including soil, however, thus far building and landscape plans <br />have been submitted and approved. <br /> <br />Councilman Helms expressed concern with the number of present and <br />future units planned for this long street with a width of only 30 feet; <br />particularly in the area of fire prevention and referred to the hazard <br />under heavy traffic conditions specifically at the entrance off <br />Colorado - that there is no safe way to make a turn. He felt the <br />addition of a high density development would only place a burden on <br />this unique street which he could not condone; that it presents a sub- <br />standard condition and suggested that the street be widened for the <br />subject 7 lots which would provide increased safety for all and would <br />alleviate some of the parking problems. He would approve the, tract <br />if it complied with standard tract regulations, i. e., curbs, gutters <br />and width of streets. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Mayor Scott agreed with the position of Councilman Helms and said in <br />his opinion Council is not well advised to approve a tract which would <br />have a substandard street. He suggested ways of reapportioning the <br />footage of Lots I and 2 and narrowing Lots 6 and 7 - which to him <br />would make a better final development. He could not support the tract <br /> <br />6-4-74 <br /> <br />- 2 - <br />