04/25/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I-A-6 ~ Mr. Chenkin noted this type of facility would require a con- ditional use permit which would be almost identical to site review regulations, in some ways being more strenuous as it would require a public hearing before a Hearings Official. Nothing would be added by adding site review procedures to the zone change. He said Council should be aware if anything were added or changed to the Planning Commission1s recommendation, it would re- quire a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and Council. . Mr. Delay was concerned as to whether the development was going to be one that would detract from the surrounding area. Mr. Chenkin replied no, the controls required through site review would be no greater than the controls under the RG zoning. Mr. Bradley oved to amend the motion, seconded by Mr. Delay, to add site review procedures to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Mayor Keller questioned if the controls were already in the existing zone change as presented, what benefit there would be to hold another hearing and send the issue back to the Planning Commission. Mr.Chenkin replied the only benefit would be if the developer decided to proceed with normal apartment development, he would have to comply with the RG district, but there would be no specific site review plan through administrative procedures. If the site review were developed as proposed, it would require a conditional use permit and nothing would be gained by adding site review. Ms. Smith asked if Mr. Chenkin were saying that without site review the developer could alter his plans and be more flexible in the type of structure. Mr. Chenkin replied that under RG zoning, the developer would be able to build an additional 20 to 25 units without site review for compati- bility. He said under the conditional use permit, it would take care of the compatibility to the area. Mr. Bradley expressed a concern to there being no binding contract, and he felt there was a need for control of this development. -- Vote was taken on the amendment to the motion which carried, with Delay, Obie, Hamel, Lieuallen, and Bradley voting aye; and Williams and Smith voting no. Stan Long, City Attorney, noted the Council had just taken action contrary to the Planning Commission's action and that under City Code Section 9.682(4), it would be necessary to schedule a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the differences. Mr. Chenkin noted that Planning Department would discuss with Plan- ning Commission as to a possible meeting date for the joint session. Further action on this council bill will be held pending results of the joint meeting with the Planning Commission and City Council. 4. Located on East Amazon Parkway, south of 41st Avenue, from RA to RA-SR (Ponderosa Investment Company) (Z 77-8) Manager noted this had been recommended by the Planning Commission at its March 8, 1977 meeting. Gary Chenkin said this parcel included 1.75 acres, and would be eligible for a cluster subdivision, with the surrounding area zoned in 1975 for a cluster subdivision. e' 4/25/77 --6 3;/.3