|
<br /> After some further discussion with regard to reasons' for bringing the ordinance for con-
<br /> sideration, Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to table the bill indefinitely. In
<br /> making the motion Mr. Mohr explained that an item tabled indefinitely can be brought
<br /> back only by majority actioD of the ~ouncil. .Motion carried, Councilmen Mohr, Beal,
<br /> Campbell, Bradshaw, and Mayor Anderson voting aye; Councilmen McDonald, Teague, Hershner, --
<br /> and Williams voting no.
<br /> Councilman Williams questioned whether the Mayor could break a tie vote on a tabling
<br /> motion. Consensus was that he could.
<br /> r
<br /> Councilman Williams wondered whether Council initiation of the item would be the only
<br /> way to reconsider. He was thinking of possibility of staff's being able to bring it back
<br /> in the event of a national disaster. Councilman Mohr said it was not his intent to fore-
<br /> stall future discussion, any councilman could have it placed on an agenda. Mayor Anderson
<br /> said his vote to table was to allow time for further discussion with staff and he would
<br /> not' hesitate to bring it back himself. It was generally understood after further discus-
<br /> sion that staff would do no further research on the matter.
<br />B. Appeal, Northland PUD
<br /> Located east of Norkenzie Road and south of Minda Drive. Pre-preliminary approval given
<br /> by Planning Commission October 10, 1972 for 20 units with conditions on about 2.5 acres I
<br /> in an R-l zone. Appeal was read from Marvin P. Brabham, 1709 Minda Drive, stating that
<br /> the Planning Commission failed to conform to requirements of Sections 9.768 through 9.792
<br /> of the zoning code. Council members previously received c?pies of Commission recommenda-
<br /> tions, staff notes, m:inutes, e!=c. Planning Director showed slides depicting character .
<br /> of the area and expl.ained the P:V9j ect .
<br /> Marvin Brabham said no pictures were shown of homes on Carmel Avenue and further along
<br /> Minda Drive which will be affected by the proposed development. He expressed 'concern
<br /> about impact on the schools in the area and. commended the Planning staff on its recom- I
<br /> mendations, saying the Commission made a mistake in not upholding those recommendations. I
<br /> Roger Bourland, 1740 Carmel Avenue; Bob McKee, 1706 Minda Drive; and Fran Corum, 1865
<br /> Tabor Street, objected to the development. They held that it would cause overcrowding
<br /> in the adjacent single-family neighborhood and w~uld not be adequately buffered, not
<br /> eno~gh consideration was given to retaining open space, schools could not handle the
<br /> added population, and, it would not serve to properly develop the area. Mrs. Gordon
<br /> Thoresen, 1720 Carmel Avenue, asked those present objecting to the PUD to show their
<br /> hands, and about twenty-five responded.
<br /> Colleen McKee, 1706 Minda Drive, asked what assurance there is that the development will
<br /> be accomplished in accordance with changes upon which approval was granted. She said the
<br /> ,developers should be required to submit a new plan before approval is given.
<br /> James Redden, Morris & Redden, architects for the Northland PUD, described the planned
<br /> development giving details with respect to open space, square footage per unit, distance .
<br /> of buildings from property line, all in conformance with requirements of the ordinance.
<br /> He said a revised plan was submitted and further plans will be available for review should
<br /> further changes be made; the plan as approved conforms to requirements of the Planning
<br /> Commission. Any questions about overcrowding of schools, he said, should be referred to
<br /> the School District for comment.
<br /> Councilman Williams questioned the approval of 20 units for 2.4 acres, saying it would
<br /> appear to be more than allowed for R-l PD. Planning Director said the square footage
<br /> was figured on. the acreage prior to street dedications and would be very close to 8 units
<br /> per acre. In answer to Mrs. Beal, he explained that when a deyeloped gives. .1and for
<br /> addi tional street right-of-way, that area dedicated is not deducted when figuring the
<br /> square footage per unit or number of units which can be constructed.
<br /> Mrs. Campbell questioned whether the intent of the 1990 Plan was to fill all vacant land
<br /> within the urban service boundary with planned unit developments and asked whether open
<br /> space for park area was considered. Alan Maxwell, Planning Commission member, said the
<br /> Commission was most concerned about this site and in its deliberations took into con-
<br /> sideration all facets of the Northland development's effect upon schools, parks, traffic,
<br /> drainage, the neighborhood generally, and its findings<were made on the ordinance in
<br /> effect.
<br /> Planning Director explained that the 1990 Plan suggests density of 10 units per acre maxi- -.
<br /> mum, the planned unit development regulations restrict it to 8 units per acre. He said it
<br /> was the feeling of the Planning Commission after denial of R-2 zoning for this property
<br /> that the site would accommodate 8 units per acre, even though staff recommendations dis-
<br /> agreed with that density. Manager said available space in the Willagillespie area for
<br /> additional portable classrooms and ultimate construction of a school on Bond Lane ade-
<br /> quately satisfied the ordinance requirements for existing and planned services.
<br /> 31-5
<br /> 11(6(72 - 3
<br />
|