01/10/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

----....-..--.-- I-A-S D. Appeal from Planning Commission decision to grant diagrammatic approval for Rivers Edge Planned Unit Development (PD 76-9) (Safley) Adams Street north of Lewis Street . - Manager noted previous distribution of the Planning Commission Report of November 9, 1976, recommending approval of the granting of diagrammatic approval for Rivers Edge PUD Development. He indicated that appeal had been filed by Allen E. McCullough, Gary L. Sedley, and Alan B. Unkeles. Mr. Saul then indicated in his background information that this approval had been recommended by the Planning Commission on November 9, 1976. He indicated this is not the first time that the matter had come before the Council for review, but that in July of 1974 a zone change request from RA to RZ had been made. Public testimony was taken at that time in which the opposition appeared with the Planning Commission approving the zone change. In August of 1974, the Planning Commission recommended this ap- proval to the Council. In September 1974, there was a joint meeting with the Planning Commis- sion in which a public hearinq was held. The Planning Commission reaf- firmed its recommendation for approval of the Planned Unit Development with a density of 13 units per acre. In October of 1974 the Council gave tentative approval, which did include the limitation of 13 units per acre. At that time there was some concern expressed over access to the river and the preservation of the vegetation adjacent to the ri ver. In September 1976, the recommendation was submitted to the Planning Commission. At its November meeting the Planning Commission approved the development of 102 units on 8.1 acres, which would be 12.5 units per-acre density. Mr. Saul indicated that the diagrammatic approval by the Planning Commission is the first stage of approval of -- '-- a PUD development. He indicated that the Council should consider the overall density, the off-site impact on facilities, and the surrounding neighborhood. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared by Council members. Planning Commission Staff Notes and minutes of November 9, 1976, were received as part of the record. Public hearing was opened. Allan McCullough, 355 North Grant, representing the appellants, indi- cated that he was talking for the concerned citizens in the neighbor- hood which would be affected by this PUD development. He said the qroup was appealing on two major bases: 1) That the findings adopted by the Planning Commission were inconclusive in nature. He said they felt that the findings were based more on the developer1s statement of compliance with the 1990 Plan rather than a critical consideration of the impact on the environment and the neighborhood; and 2) The appel- lants were concerned with the promises made by the developer, with thei r mai n concerns be,i ng that there was inadequate evi dence to sup- port the Planning Commission findings that the developer would indeed back up some of the promises he had made in testimony for the Planning Commission. Mr. McCullouqh went on to indicate there were several specific areas of concern by the neighborhood group involved. Fi rst that the PUD development would occupy a large portion of the neighbor- . hood and therefore would have a large impact on the neighborhood. He "--' 1/10/77 - 6 1'J-