11/06/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mrs. Beal asked whether the development will necessitate street widening, sidewalks, etc., and whether other people will hpye to dedicate land for right-of-~ay purposes. Manager said additional right-of-way will not be required from other people in that area since the City has been buying as it can be acquired for the widening of Norkenzie. As to curbs . and gutters' and sidewalks, staff feels they should be installed although not necessarily with this project, but that decision rests with the Council. Councilman McDonald asked the number of units in the Bond Lane PUD compared to this, re- ferring to th~ 8-units~per-acre restriction on Northland PUD. Manager replied that the Bond Lane PUD is ip an R-2 zone which allows greater density. Councilman Hershner wondered whether permitting PUDs in single-family zones when it is felt services and buffering are sufficient is a device for locating multiple housing in R-I zones. He said it seems the .absolute maximum density is always allowed when approv- ing planned unit developments giving the impression of "apartment house" developments. Manager said this kind of development tends to give a more compactly developed community in. that dwelling unitE; can be clustered together in m.ultiple types of structures thereby providing more open space. If the same property were developed in single-family units, taking into account land used for streets, an acre would accommodate only about three or four units. Councilman Mohr referred to the density studies. resulting from proposed planned unit de- velopments in the southern section of the City and wondered whether a change in the planned unit .development procedure should be considered in light of comments-on the Northland PUD. He said there should be equal application of the 1990 Plan rhpoughout the City. e In answer to Councilman Williams about the_mini~um acreage for a PUD, Planning Director said four acres is the minimum that can be serviced unless. the Planning Commission is persuaded a site qualified as an isolated or unique problem. This site does have problems because .of its location. Staff did not recommend approval of the planned 8 -units per acre because it was felt the design needed more refinement with that density. In answer to Mrs. Beal, he said there was one vote against the pre-preliminary approval by the Planning Commission. Councilmen McDonald and Bradshaw suggested referring the item back to. the Planning Com- mission for discussion with respect to the density and equal application of the 1990 Plan requirements. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to sustain the appeal and deny the PUD. Considerable discussion followed to clarify, intent of the motion with explanation of understanding between the Council and Planning Commission that action 6f, the Council re- versing a Planning Commission. .recommendation does not b.ecome final until that matter has been discussed jointly by the .two bodies and each takes action again separately. This motion would indicate the Council wishes to.sustain the appeal but would like more detail from the Planning Commission. Several councilmen felt the motion should be simple re- . ferral to the Planning Commission, however, rather than a definite denial of the develop- ment. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. McDonald to substitute a motion to refer the item to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council~ Motion carried unanimously. Councilman McDonald left the meeting. . r .' .. C. Levying Assessments,. 10th and Oak Overpark .. Council Bill No. 106 - Levying'assessments and declaring benefited'previously exempted properties in 10th and Oak Overpark District, submi tted and read the first time on October 9, 1972 and held to this date for . hearing. Manager explained that information subsequent to presentation of this bill called for its rewriting and setting ~ew h~aring date. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal to substitute Council Bill No. 118 and call hearing for November 27, 1972 (see under ordinances.- C.B.118). . . . '. , Motion carri~d unanimously. . - D. Withdrawing. from Oakwa~Water District recently annexed Calvin Street property Council Bill No. 113 ~ Withdrawing from Oakway Water District property recently annexed to the City and located on Calvin Street north of Harlow Road was submitted (Kehoe). 32& 11/6/72 - 4-