02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e in the South Hills, reports covering the South Hills study, staff notes and Plan- ning Commission minutes covering deliberations regarding the South Hills, staff notes and minutes and other records of both the Planning Commission and Council relating to the Southridge PUD. He described the Southridgc property proposed for planned unit development, calling attention to the particular parcel annexed by Ordinance 13544 and entering that ordinance into the record as Exhibit 1. Mr. Gleaves further entered as Exhibit 2 Ordinance 13755 zoning the subject land to RA. He noted code provisions governing planned unit development procedures and other documents concerned with the development of this property under PUD procedures, taking cognizance of staff concern about the ridge line park proposal Also noted was public works department memo indicating design of sanitary sewer was submitted and approved which would serve the entire property. Entered into the record as Exhibit 3 was copy of notice of public hearing January 4, 1972 in connection with this PUD application, this notice specifically indicating the in- clusion of this property within the urban service boundary. He cited specific dates of adoption of the 1990 Plan (March 27, 1972), pre-preliminary approval of the proposed Southridge PUD on 112 acres (Mary 8, 1972), and adoption of other documents concerned with Phase 1 of the project which gained final approval. He noted application filed for preliminary approval of Phase 2 on August 2, 1974 - 12+ acres with 3.68 units per acre and pointed out its location on a vicinity map. He reviewed action of the Planning Commission culminating in denial of the applica- tion on December 17, 1974 with continuation to the January 13, 1975 meeting with instructions for preparation of findings supporting that denial (findings in staff notes and minutes supported approval). e Mr. Gleaves said the record clearly showed that no conclusion was reached, that the negative vote was not a final decision because findings were not adopted, and that there was no motion to continue the issue for determination. He said that under code provisions if the Commission did not make a decision or specifically continue the matter, the application was determined approved. Mr. Gleaves offered as Exhibit 4 a letter written by the city manager stating the city's position on the appeal filed by the applicant on December 27 contending that the application had been approved. The stated city position was that the Commission merely continued the matter to the January 13 meeting for adoption of findings. That action was taken - denial of the preliminary approval based on findings pre- pared by staff - and applicant filed the second appeal. It was to be understood, he said, that the hearing at this time was on the consolidation of those two appeals. Mr. Gleaves said extensive evidence with regard to the development itself would not be presented because appellant believed the Commission's decision to deny was based not on the PUD aspects of the development but on the interpretation of the South Hills study, that certain language in Resolution 2295 adopting that study precluded the Commission's approving this application. So the presentation was guided, he said, primarily by public policy with regard to development of property south of the ridge line. It was appellant's stand that public policy did not preclude such development, particularly when applicant indicated willing- ness to develop the property in accordance with conditions set out in staff notes and in Commission action on December 17. (0720) e Lloyd Bond, member of the Southridge design team, stated his qualifications as landscape architect. He pointed out on a sketch the property just south of the ridge line on which the development was proposed, other PUDs in the area, and the South Hils ridge line. He described the project, a portion of which is now con- structed, in relation to vicinity streets and terrain. Mr. Bond further explained the existing sewer layout serving part of Phase IA and designed to serve the balance of the project and said that it was the identical layout submitted to the Commission at the time of pre-preliminary approval of the project in 1971. Alternatives were 2/24/75 - 5 73