Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />�0 <br />Regular City Counci� Meet�ng <br />Mvnday, June 11, 2007 <br />Page 19 <br />�r. Callaghan concurred, and opined ihat neighborhoods needed to be <br />identified and preserved, and not vi�wed as simplistically as the repo� <br />indieaied. <br />Vivian Ramalingam, 2182 Acorn Road, and a mernber of the Ci�i� <br />zen Adviso�y Group (CAG) <br />Ms. Ramalingam assured Mr. Caliaghan that an affected property <br />owner had been on �he CAG. <br />1� �s. Ramalingam noted that she had signed the recommenda�ions p�e- <br />12 sented by Ms. McGehee, primarily due to recommendation #3 regard- <br />13 ing public h�aring requiremen�s, noting h�r past conc�rns regarding <br />14 such notice. <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />�8 <br />�9 <br />20 <br />2� <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />Ms. Ramalingam coneurr�d with Ms. Sha�'fer's comnaents xegarding <br />the need for more discussion than was repz-esenfed in the CAG repoz-t, <br />recognizing the problem �o make �hem succinct enough for the Ci�y <br />Council to work wi�h; hovcrever, opining the fne detai�ed discussions <br />and context would be benefcial, and could be provided sepaarately. <br />Ms. Rama�ingam addressed several personal observations related �o <br />new houses facing the s�r�et and the puzpose of such a�reeommenda- <br />tion; and obsezvations on Acorn Road with bicycle �ra�'fic and reason- <br />able traffic speeds and lack of visibii�ty for bicycle 1xaffic. <br />27 Ms. Ramalingam expressed hope that the City Council would consider <br />28 deve�oping these considerations and accept more observations from <br />29 the CAG. <br />30 <br />31 Councilmember Pust questioned i�' Ms, Ram�ingam was supporiive, <br />32 through her signature on the recommendations, of those four recom- <br />33 mendations �hat were in direct eonflic� wi�h the eonsensus-supported <br />34 recomm�ndations of the CAG. <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />Ms. Ramlingam opined that the primary reeommendation (#4) of Ms. <br />McGehee's recom�a�endatzons rela�ed �o �ot sizes no smaller than av- <br />erage con�iguous lots, and a sliding scale could be very cumbersome; <br />and pu� h�rs�lf on the �ide of Mr. Callaghan's camments. <br />