02/27/1978 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council would not be to attempt to achieve through denial of a subse- quent phase of the development. He said that would not preclude City ~ Council from dealing with legitimate questions or problems that might arise. Council could still have the power to invoke other provisions such as a moratorium. Mr. Bradley was unsatisfied with the answer, saying he felt Council should have some way to deal with any problems that might occur in Phase II which had not been adequately dealt with in Phase 1. Mr. Saul felt the issue was somewhat broader than this particular appeal, in that Council was dealing with very explicit provisions of the code in terms of an appeal and the scope allowed. He reminded Council when it considered the ordinance, the appeal section was looked at very carefully by both staff and Council. The appeal section is written in such a manner that it attempts to focus the appeal on the scope of the considerations that are designed for that particular phase or stage. He said it was done in part to protect Council to keep the scope of discussion on a legitimate basis; howevert it does limit the scope of Council's own inquiry. Ms. Smith questioned whether the testimony regarding drainage and crumbling foundations was within the proper jurisdiction of discus- sion. Mr. Saul said he had not dealt with the major points raised in testimony, noting one of the main ones was the soil and geological conditi ons on the property. He sai d no one had suggested thi s site did not have problems, and these issues would have to be examined. He said the question involved how that is approached and what the impli-. ~ cations of it are. When the South Hills Study was done, the purpose .., was not to say that a particular site could not be developed. The function of the information was to flag danger signals that require special consideration in development of the property. In this parti- cular PUD application, there may be dangers and he said there are indicators that require special engineering conditions. However, there is nothing in the policy framework of the City that says the site could not be developed, but rather how it can be rendered safe. He said the next question involved whether the Hearings Official conditions imposed in the PUD development address those problems. He said there were a number of ways the City could ensure the safe development of the property. The specifications for design standards are required by contract; the Building Department maintains a file and would check when a building permit comes in to see if the engineering geological report has been included in the design and if the recommen- dations have been carried out. He said the conditions imposed guarantee submission of design and assurance of incorporating those conditions in the building of the structures. Regarding the question of Amazon drainage, he said this was an off- site impact considered at the first stage approval. He noted for Council the AmaZOn drainage facility is a Corps of Engineer facility which the City maintains by contract. It was designed and created - 2/27/78--8 132. ~