02/19/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r- 62 e 2/l9/fJ8_ letter from the Association objecting to Section 18.05 referred to in Section 28.02. The Association listed other organizations opposed to the makeup of the "design team" and requested rewriting of the section to include other professional people before adopting of the ordinance. I Mr. Britton referred to Section 28.02 (b) 1. (last sentence of the first paragraph) which calls for a boundary survey by a registered engineer or licensed surveyor plus contour information as a prerequisite to Stage Two approval. He said a boundary survey in some instances involves considerable ~xpense, and at this stage a certified boundary description would serve the purpose. Considerable discussion followed with regard to mandatory or permissive Planning Commission approval of pre-preliminary (Stage One) plans prior to Planning Commission consideration of Stage Two plans, and whether the developer must indicate to the staff or Planning Commission his professional design team at Stage One or Stage Two. Councilman Anderson suggested eliminating the words "during Stage One" in the second sentence of the sixth paragraph of Section 28.02. Dan Herbert and Jon Berry, architects, objected to elimination of the use of the design team during the beginning steps of a planned unit development. Councilman McDonald asked at what stage of the planning a developer would be assured he would be able to carry through with, a planned unit development, and Mrs. Niven replied it would depend upon the project. Councilman Wingard referred. back to Mr. Britton's comments with regard to need for a boundary survey at Stage Two, and asked if a certified site plan would suffice. The Planning Director said boundary surveys and contour information are essential' in the first stage for all concerned to provide accurate information. Councilwoman Lauris suggested adding at the end of the first paragraph under Section 28.02 (b) 1. the words "...if e~isting data ~oes not already provide the necessary information." The Public Woiks Director said that many times City streets and sewers traverse a development, and the survey and contour information provide a method of control for City construction. Mr. Thomas suggested that at the time the pre-preliminary conference is held between the staff and petitioner, the Public Works Department at that time could advise the petitioner as to the scope of engineering data required,. If, engineering requirements are part of. the staff recommendation in pre-preliminary planning and the petitioner takes exception, then he can take it to the Planning Commission. Councilman McDonald inquired if it would be well to have public hearings at Stage One, and Mr. Thomas said it wouldn't because at Stage One there is not sufficient progress on the development to warrant public notice. e I Councilman Lassen suggested the requirement for boundary survey have an alternative of a certified boundary description. Wayne Johnson said he felt the report from the pre-preliminary stage rather than in Stage 3. necessary in the pre-preliminary stage because engineering will be required. Public Works Department should be received 'in the The Public Works Director said the detailed report'is not at that point the problem is deciding whether City ,I, Louis Bonson, designer, again referred to exclusion of designers in'the "design team" makeup contained in Section 18.05 and asked that it be referred back to the: staff. Mr. Johnson askedif'thedesigh team is required duri~g the first, stage and whether the wotHihg of Section ~8.02'requires two applications, one at Stage One and another at Stage Two. The Planning Dire~tor said the intent is that the pre- preliminary approval, does not require a formal, application, merely a letter. of intent on the part of the petitioner. Also, that the design team is to be working on the development in the pre-preliminary stage. Ir.R1twmoved that the section.be ,re.ferred: to the staff and the staff, use these comments to rewrite the I section. . There was no second. I I I Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to delete the work. "Application" at the beginning of Section 28.02 and insert instead "A letter of intent" and.to change the wording oi' the last. sentence in the first paragraph, under Section 28.03 (b) 1. to read:'~A bou'ndary surveyor certified boundary description by a registered engineer..~". A vote was taken and. the motion carried. Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to delete the sentence "If the staff and applicant reach a satisfactory agreement, the applicant may proceed to prepare data for Stage Two - Preliminary Approval." at the beginning of the sixth paragraph under. Section 28.02 and insert it immediat'ely following the seventh'paragraph in Section 28.02. Motion carried, Mr. Wingard and'Mr: Lassen voting no. e 1 Articles 29 through 36, except Article 30 which was considered at a previous meeting, were presented with no comments. It.was explained that because Article 22 - Special Permit Requirements for Flood Hazard Area - has yet to be..discussed along with establishment of Flood Hazard District in Article 2, and the street map is yet to be considered, in addition,to extensive editing, the ordinance document will not be ready for adoption by the Council for another three or four weeks. A letter from Lloyd Bond, landscape architect, was presented supporting the requirement for a design team as provided in Section 18.05. 2 Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mr. Wingard to refer the zoning ordinance to the staff for preparation of the final draft to include amendments as recommended in these public hearings and bring it back to the Council for passage. Motion carried. .. The hearing, was adjourned. I - 2/19/68 - 2 ....