03/16/98 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1717, Minutes March 16, 1998 Two other amendments regarding screening for noise and sun and placing building height limits on planned developments were deferred for review. Mayor Adams declared the public hearing opened. There were no requests to speak from the public. Mr. Lieberman has some personal concerns regarding some of these changes. The first amendment about incompatible land use not being permitted to abut residential neighborhoods, as the code now reads, planned development regulations are not intended to allow excessive densities for the development of incompatible land uses either within the development or as the development relates to the general neighborhood. The proposed amendment, in his view, is not necessary and is redundant. The second amendment, the code says that the Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may approve an increase in maximum site coverage as a bonus. This applies to going from 70% up to 90% coverage of the site as a bonus, but the development plan must demonstrate compliance with at least four performance criteria. The amendment of a 2/3 vote of Councilmembers, meaning the big majority of Council has to approve that before it can happen. Mr. Lieberman does not feel this is necessary and that a simple majority is sufficient in order to accommodate this change. The third amendment, dealing with increase in building height, which cannot be changed following the approval of the development plan, sounds fine to him. The fourth amendment dealing with the parking requirements, adding a number of spaces depending on a fraction of the number of dwelling units makes sense to him. The fifth amendment, dealing with deadlines for filing rezoning protest petitions, says that the petition should be filed with the City Clerk at least seven days prior to the public hearing meeting. The Plan Commissions zoning attorney says that we should comply with the state law, which in the eyes of the courts, says that the petitions should be filed with the City Clerk, no later than 5 p.m. on the date of the first scheduled public hearing. The wording should be changed to comply with this wording. Mr. Wagner wished to respond to Mr. Lieberman's comments. The first amendment was a matter of emphasizing the residential neighborhoods, where the Commission thought the interpretation had been open to question. To them, it was a matter of clarifying the emphasis on protecting the abutting residential neighborhoods. It is redundant, but only a matter of clarification and emphasis. The Plan Commission did support this clarification. Amendment #2, the 2/3 vote, the Commission said that this was a severe change, to go from 70% to 90% coverage. They talked about adding more criteria and they opted to go with a 2/3 vote instead of changing the criteria. They clearly thought it was so important that they did not want a regional split on the Council to decide a matter like this. They pointed out that in other parts of the code, that a 2/3 vote is still required. They decided this would be a reasonable compromise. The third and fourth amendments were accurately described and he believes are fine. The fifth amendment, regarding filing of protest petitions, the Commission deferred to the staff, but some of the discussion was not to have it too late, for example, to have it at 5 p.m.