11/27/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ the BPA easement area is to be used for open space and should be included in the BALSM development. Mr. Mulder concluded that a year and a half and 17 hearings to consider all of the record would not 'appear to be inconsiderate 'of the needs of the community, and that those opposing th~ projects are not considering a balance between growth and conserva- -~ tion of the environment. He said denial of the projects would injure the PUD concept. He asked denial of the appeal, saying the BALSM project in no way interferes with the ridgelinepark concept, that there is no better way to allow new living units,bas~d on a five- to six-year buildi~g program. Mayor Anderson called for comments from the audience, saying the issue is whether there are errors in findings on record on Which th~ decisions of the Planning Commission were made. Comments should.be based only on evidence which has been presented to -this point. Bob Suess, 260 East 38th' Avenue, asked when the original PUD ordinance was ado~d, and was told that it was in March 1968. Mr. Suess favored the PUD concept and said these developments would not attract the type of family which would have school-age children. He advocated permission to proceed with the projects and suggested the appellants peti- tion for City purchase of the balance of the hillside areas for park purposes if they dislike seeing re~idential development in th.ose areas. In answer to Mrs. Beal, Mr. Mulder said a firm sale price could not be given on units be- cause of rising building costs, but at this time about 103 units are scheduled to sell for about $22,000 each. Further, that the projects are privately financed, there is no Federal money involved, and all improvements - streets, sidewalks, sewers, etc. - will be privately financed. e Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal on behalf of the Council to affirm the, action taken by the Planning Commission on the Southridge Planned Unit De- velopment and finds: (1) The final development plan of the Southridge Planned Unit Development conforms.to all applicable criteria and Btandards of planned I unit development regulations and procedures; (2) the plan conforms in all sub- stantial respects to the development's previous planned unit development pre- liminary approval; and (3) the Planning Commission's approval of the develop- ment's final development plan was not in error, was not an abuse of discretion, and was supported by evidence in the record. Mr. Mohr confirmed Councilman McDonald's question that the motion as stated was formed with legal counsel. Mrs. Beal said she would vote against the motion, not because the Planning Commission was in error since.:the record is clear. She said her vote against the projects is because she feels the costs of any new developments of this size and magnitude at the edge of the City have always cost the City and the taxpayer more in extension of services and new facilities than:is brought in in increased valuation. Before a development of this type is approved, she continued, these,costs should be.known then some decision can be made as to who will pay them. .' Councilman Teague asked the Planning Commission Chairman, James Pearson, if there,had been any testimony presented at this hearing which the Planning Commission had not had an opportunity to consider. Mr., Pearson replied that although he, had, not heard all of the presentation, the Commission did make new findings in fact in granting final approval of these limited first phases of Southridge and BALSM developments. What additional testimony was presented to the Commission in considering the final approval was largely repetitious, he said, and he had heard nothing this evening that was not heard in the hearings on final approval. Mr. Anderson reminded the Council the record is what is under consideration, not new testimony. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mrs. Beal voting no, Mr. Hershner abstaining. Mr. Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal on. behalf of the Council to affirm the action taken by the Planning Commission on the BALSM Planned Unit Development and finds: (1) T.he final development plan of the BAf;SM Planned Unit Develop- ment conforms to all applicable criteria and standards of planned unit development regulations and procedures; (2) the plan conforms in all substantial respects to tIE development's previous planned unit development preliminary approval; and -: (3) the Planning Commission's. approval of the development's final development plan was not in error, was not an abuse of discretion, and was supported by - evidence in the record. . Motion carried, all councilmen present voting aye, except Mrs. Beal voting no. C. Rezoning - West side of Chambers between 18th and 23rd from R-l to R-3 (Mulder) Planning Commission recommended denial on. October 3, 1972. Hearing before Council continued trOJD No.vember 6 ~ 1~_~2. 338 11/27/72 - 4