Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Resolution No. 2534 - Authorizing temporary trailer for office of PeoPfe's <br /> Bank at northeast corner of Broadway and Pearl for <br /> 18 months was read by number and title. It. <br /> ,,~ <br /> Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to adopt the resolution. Mot ion carri ed <br /> unanimously. <br /> C. Appeal from Zoning Board of Appeals denial of variance for duplex at <br /> 388& Robin Street (James & Company for Carl Petersen) <br /> Variance denied by the Zoning Board on May 27, 1976. <br /> Mr. Haws moved second by Mrs. Beal to refer the appeal to Assessment <br /> Panel for hearing on August 2, 1976. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> D. Revision of Planned Unit Development Regulations I-A-2 <br /> Manager noted the proposed revisions were the result of Planning Commission and <br /> special committee study for about two years. He asked Gary Chenkin, assistant <br /> planning director, to review the proposed changes recommended by the Commission <br /> on April 26, 1976 and covered in Planning staff notes and minutes of that date, <br /> previously distributed to the Council. <br /> Mr. Chenkin reviewed in detail the proposed changes in regulations, saying they <br /> would still provide for a three-step process in consideration of planned unit <br /> developments: (1) Pre-preliminary or diagrammatic, offering careful review of <br /> off-site impact; (2) Preliminary, relating to on-site considerations such as <br /> topography, vegetation, street/walkway layout, etc; (3) Final or technical, <br /> which would include review of engineering and development of details to ensure <br /> their correspondence to what was approved in the first two steps. A major e <br /> modification, he said, was use of a density point system based on bedroom count <br /> rather than dwelling units, which would more accurately indicate the number of .....- <br /> people anticipated to live in a development. Mr. Chenkin reviewed statistics <br /> based on the anticipated use of the density p~int count, also detailed in plan- <br /> ning staff notes. Also presented were changes in the code related to planned <br /> unit developments, mostly housekeeping measures except one amendment, which <br /> would add site review criteria and special criteria oriented to erR provisions <br /> to be met before approval. This was proposed to avoid the cumbersome process of <br /> going through both conditional use and planned unit development procedures, and <br /> allow consideration by a hearings official rather than the Commission. Finally, <br /> Mr. Chenkin said the proposed changes also involve two resolutions, one that <br /> would translate dwelling units per acre to density points per acre in the South <br /> Hi 11 s , the other that would adjust fees for PUDs because of difference in time <br /> allqcated in processing under the new procedure. <br /> Public hearing was opened. <br /> Richard Unruh, member of the PUD committee of the Homebuilders Association, ex- <br /> pressed the Association's general concurrence in the proposal as presented. <br /> He expressed one reservation, covered in a letter from the Association which he <br /> presented to the Council, about the numbers finally affixed to the various build- <br /> ing types in the density point system. He said the concept was approved, but it <br /> was felt the results gave more density than there should be. <br /> Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. -- <br /> In response to Mr. Unruh, Mr. Chenkin said that in figuring the point allocation, <br /> ....../ <br /> an attempt was made to keep the maximum as close as possible to the average PUDs <br /> encountered to date. He said the Homebuilders want a different figure in the <br /> three- and four-bedroom units, particularly where the Commission has already re- <br /> 7/26/76 -- 2 3~'i <br />