06/12/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

----- '--""; \ B. PUD Procedures Mr" .Mohr, moved ,seconded by Mrs. Beal to. instruct the staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance requiring all developments within the area in question to be made under planned unit development procedures, except minor subdivision, until completion of the study. ./ ' , ' Manager, in answer to Councilman McDonald,. explained that the recommendations apply to an area within 2000 feet of the ridgeline on the south portion of the City, and for only the period of time necessary to develop this study and make a decision wh~ther ~ny permanept changes, ~ould.be recommended. I Vote was taken on the motion as stated, and motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Hershner abstaining. C. Density Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that wi thin the designated study area, the maximum density permitted will be limited to six (6) dwelling units per acre. Assistant City Attorney Korth, in answer to Councilman Teague, said, the Council can change the density at any time, regardless of the recommendation coming from the study. Councilman Bradshaw expressed the opinion that a density .+imi tation in this area would tend to ,force population int.o etherar.e.as which have even greater problems. Mr. Bradshaw moved, seconded by Mr. McDonald, to amend the motion to make the density limitation eight (8) dwelling units per acre. .- Mr'~ . M,~Pon?,+d inquired whether the' limitation covers the entire City, and :was told the recommendation applied only to the study area. Councilman }~ohr noted that the present zoning requirements allow eight units per acre. With the consent of Mr. McDonald, Councilman Bradshaw withdrew his motion. Mrs. Campbell urged other Council members to uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission, saying it is necessary to maintain a balance between land development and municipal services. She said the planners in making these recommendations are follow- ing,a,policy set by the Council itself. " , . Mr. Teague expressed concern about the amount of time consumed in making the study and the costs incurred by those people having investments in the area. He favored limit- ing the density to allow the study to proceed as quickly as possible. I Mr. McDonald did not feel one area should be designated, and that the requirements should be applied uniformly to the entire City. I Vote was taken on the motion to limit the density to six (6) units per acre. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mr. Bradshaw voting no, and Mr. Hershner abstaining. . D. Annexation Moratorium Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Planning Commission withhold favorable recommendation for further annexation in the designated study area, during the period I of the study, except for those areas considered a public health hazard. Mayor Anderson was concerned about a general moratorium on annexations. He said it would appear better for each annexation to be considered by itself rather than apply- ing a blanket policy to the entire area. Mrs. Beal said she feels this is the most important part of the entire Plan, to set a firm and careful outline of City limits and urban service boundary, and that it should be included. Discussion continued on this point between Mayor Anderson and Mrs. Beal. Upon questioning from Mr. Mohr it was determined the effect of the motion would be to indicate that the Council does not want to give favorable consideration to any annexation request in that area. Mrs. Campbell said the moratorium is in keeping with Community Goals and the 1990 Plan, it will permit a real study of the area with respect to municipal sarvices expected upon annexsation and costs of those services to the City. Mrs. Beal concurred and called attention in particular to large areas within the City where services are . already available. - Councilman Mohr suggested if the Council declares a moratorium on annexations in the area the motion should be changed to say that as public policy the Council will not consider, any annexation petition from this area until completion of the study. Dis- cussion continued on net effect of the motion and whether the Council should uphold the Planning Commission's recommendatiop. / fp.lf 6/12(72 - 7