08/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Manager felt because of Fasano requirements that some limit should be set for bringing the matter back. He suggested postponement to the October 14, 1974 Council meeting. Mr. Hershner with consent of Councilman Wood incorporated a deadline of e ", October 14, 1974 Council meeting into the motion. Councilman McDonald wondered what the difference would be between tabling the issue and postponing it. He said he could see nothing wron& after reading the Board of Appeals minutes and viewing the property, with installation of a second sign on the east side of the Ricketts building. Mayor Anderson explained that a tabling motion would require a vote of the Council to bring the issue back for consideration. Post- poning to a designated date would set a definite deadline for reconsideration. Vote was taken on the motion to postpone to pO.'later than Octoberu.'i4,_ 1974. ; Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye, except Mr. McDonald voting no, Mr. Williams abstaining. Mayor Anderson asked if the sign code provided for removal of obsolete or abandoned (0646) signs. Patti Johnson, sign inspector, said that it did and that enforcement had been started on the one mentioned. B.2. Nelson Page, 1815 Norkenzie Road - Norkenzie and Minda PUD Letter of appeal from Nelson Page was read asking reversal of Planning Commission deci- sion June 24, 1974 giving final approval to the planned unit development at the south- east corner of Norkenzie and Minda - 20 dwellings on about 2-1/2 acreS: ,Copies of e Planning Commission staff notes and minutes for the June 24 meeting were previously distributed to Council members. There were no ex parte contacts or other reasons for abstention declared by Council members. Will Johnstone, planner, reviewed history of the project and noted that there was no preliminary approval. He showed slides of the property and ask etches showing layout of proposed structures and open space. And he noted the difficulty in developing the property because of its shape and access. Public hearing was opened. (0778) Roger Weber, 3012 West 18th Avenue, read a letter written by Nelson Page, unable to attend the meeting, opposing the proposed development. Mr. Wever added his opposition, saying the project would create a density contrary to the residential character of the neighborhood. Marvin Brabham, 1709 Minda Drive, also objected to the development, calling attention to an appeal he had submitted on the final approval subsequent to r1r. Page I s appeal. He felt the planning staff was inconsistent in its findings in that previous statements that a low-density proposal would be desirable for compatibility with the surrounding single-family development did not coincide with the present proposal having two-story e buildings, one within 14 feet of the property line, which presented a definite impact on adjoining properties. Also, previous planning called for two entrances to handle traffic generated by the development whereas the present development had only one. There was no playground, he said, regardless of previous indication that on-site open space was most important, and although a reduction in density was previously called for, there was none in this proposal. Mr. Brabham said the entire area was saturated with multiple-family units and addition of the proposed development would create an unfavorable impact on surrounding properties. Jim Redden, architect, and co~ordinator for the project, and Oscar Krumdieck, the developer, reviewed their efforts in putting together a development designed to meet planning and public works departments requirements and to satisfy the desires of neighboring property owners. Mr. Redden compared the location of structures on this prop~rty with requirements for single-family lots and said maintenance of the property ~as a requirement under planned unit procedures. He felt, the development would meet the General Plan provision for filling in vacant areas within the city. Mr. Krumdieck called attention to the time and expense of developing working drawings for the project after preliminary approval was gained with no appeal at that point. He felt that the appeal of final approval was a delaying tactic, adding to costs of the development, and that the Council should deny it. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. - Mr. JonrLston explained the Commission's thinking in approving the development design, which placed structures at an angle on the property to lessen: the impact on adjoining properti.es. With regard to the one entrance on this plan, he said, the earlier plan had centralized on-site parking and the two entrances would spread traffic leaving the proper.ty rather than concentrating egress at one point; the present'scheme with buildings over the entire property permits smaller sca~tered parking sites with \ .~ "~,,I~-:::~ J.---- 2.,7 8/12/74 - '4