01/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Rivers Edge Planned Unit Development (PO 76-9)(Safley) (Adams Street north of Lewis Street), with the Staff to prepare a written document . for the basis of denial of this appeal. '-- The motion carripd with Delay, Lieuallen, Haws, Smith and Williams voting aye, and Hamel, Bradley, and Obie voting no. Mr. Long indicated that the Staff would need to support specific findings for denying with respect to the errors made by the Planning Commission. Councilman Obie then asked that the Staff prepare a ducument of positive findings. He expressed concern for development and the impact on the city. He indicated that we need PUD housing, but that no one wants it in his own neighborhood. He indicated that rental property leads to transitory versus permanent characteristics and it is detrimental to adjacent neighbors because of the density of PUD housing. Councilman Lieuallen said he disagreed with Mr. Obie, that the Council has to implement the notion of compact growth. Whatever development takes place will of course increase the traffic impact, but he felt the traffic argument was not relevant because it will be faced in any part of town. Mr. Bradley made a motion to postpone the action by the Council on this item until an analysis of Items 1 through 6 of the proposed Resolution by the neighborhood group had been looked at with the Staff to prepare a report with positive and negative findings; there being no second to the motion, it was dropped. e -' Mr. Saul responded to the Items 1 through 6 in the Resolution. No.1: That the effect of traffic be considered on a percentage basis increase, rather than on the basis of whether existing streets can handle it. Pedestrain safety and necessary improvements should be given more weight. He said the criteria of the City Code is spe- cific and the evidence indicates that the streets are able to handle the traffic. No.2: That an evergreen screen be planted around the periphery of the development, particularly around the north and west edges and that this be something more than a screen that will be effective in 20 years. He said the Planning Commission has the authority to require screening around the periphery and there was no evidence in the testimony given before the Planning Commission any reason for thi s to be done. On the north side the developer proposes to leave the evergreens and the Planning Commission will review with greater intensity the problem of screening as the proposal goes through its final stages. No.3: That if street improvements become necessary, as they almost certainly will, the owners abutting these street improvements will only be assessed in the amount thei r property val ue is actually enhanced by the improvement and the developer pay for the rest. Mr. Saul indicated that this goes directly against the present City . Ordi nances. '--"- No.4: That the developer either construct his own recreational facilities or be required to pay for additional facilities that will 1(, 1/10/77 - 10