11/27/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Aldave said there is no substantial evidence to show that traffic congestion will not result. The decision in this respect, he said, was based upon opinion. He maintained that a certain standard has to be accepted for evidence and that the courts cannot review a case where there is no evidence against which to measure; the Planning Commission in his view based its decision upon the fact that resulting congestion from these developments ... would be no worse than in any other area in the City. With regard to facilities and ~ services, inadequate fire protection has been established, he said, by the recent election - on adding fire stations and equipment. And some of the .schools in the area are already overtaxed. Mr. Aldave argued that the developments would not enhance the living environ- ment because of the further burden on schools, traffic, shopping centers, increased noise and air pollution, and that they are not in a typical planned unit development area, being at the end of a valley with only one way out. The area, he said, would best be devoted to a park, preserving the ridgeline. Mr. Aldave said a decision on granting the PUDs should be delayed until completion of the ridgeline park study. The developments, he continued, violate many of the. goals of the 1990 Plan, do not meet the criteria of the planned unit development ordinance,.and should have been denied. Rick Cleveland, 260 East 11th, attorney representing the Southridge developers, commented on the length of time taken on these developments. He offered and asked the Council to take into consideration the entire contents of the record to date - all data, maps, charts, I models, minutes of both Planning Commission and Council - of criteria when decision was made on preliminary approval. He said all of the criteria was processed in public hear- ings and decided upon in that preliminary approval, conditions of which were met and statements entered in the record by the design team and owners as to how they were met when .'. requesting final approval. He said this would not seem to be "sketchy" evidence' as to com- . pliance with required criteria. -- With regard to sequential development and comp,act urban growth, Mr. Cleveland argued that the developments are within the urban service boundary of the 1990 Plan and do not create I a larger urban .service area. The EWEB expenditure referred to by Mr. Aldave, he said, I will include the cost of a reservoir and provide facilities for serving the entire area. He said there is evidence to show that the cost of schools will be more than met by resi- dents of the developments, and that the density is within the single-family zone,require- ment - six units per acre. Also the record shows testimony of a qualified traffic engineer on adequacy of existing and planned streets with regard to "congestion," Mr. Cleveland said, and he is confident that there is sufficient evidence to that effect. He protested the existence of the Southridge appeal, saying all of these issues were pre- sented before and the Council should act with full findings accommodating elements of the ordinance. He asked that the form of motion be made in consultation with legal counsel to protect the record and asked that Southridge Phase I be permitted. John Mulder, 1147 High Street, attorney representing the BALSM develppers, said the in- tent of Section 9.780 of the Code, particularly with regard to final approval, was that appeals be limited only to summary statements as to issues on record. The only issue be- fore the Council, he said, is whether the Planning Commission erred ,in making its decision relating to the planned unit development ordinance. The inclusion of new.material at this." point is outside the area of the Code and should be denied. He maintained that the re- cord is most complete in its present condition and read from minutes of various meetings of the. Planning Commission and Council at which the planned unit development permits were I considered in public hearing. . Mr. Mulder said BALSM does not contemplate building apartments, rather they will be build- ing units for sale, and they will be compatible with other development in the area. Open space to the extent of 78% of existing BALSM acreage will be created and maintained through private funds. With regard to the contention-that the development does not proper- ly consider traffic, schools, shopping facilities,fire and police protection, Mr. Mulder stated that the Code makes it the responsibility of the Public Works Department to see that these requirements are met, and the Public Works Department has on severql occasions reported to the Planning Commission and Council its findings in this respect. He referred to the appellants' contention that the Commission erred in considering the BPA easement area in calculating the number of units which could be built upon the site, and said this as well as all other issues brought.up were intensely covered as reflected by the Council and Planning Commission minutes. With regard to the request for delay of the projects, Mr. Mulder said this first came to the.Planning Commission in April 1971 as a petition for annexation of the property with .' subsequent postponements for consideration of questions raised about impact on traffic, IIIri schools, and density. In addition, several public hearings were held in connection with . obtaining planned unit development approval. He detailed action by the Boundary Commission, Planning Commission, and Council and read portions from minutes of those meetings having to do with consideration of whether traffic congestion would occur, whether schools would be overburdened, and whether impact on density of the area would be undesirable. He said ~ ~ 1 11/27/72 - 3