Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING~PUI3LIC HEARING <br />MARCH 10, 1982 <br />PAGE 10 <br />~~ <br />concern that if the preliminary plan is approved, Council might not be <br />able to enforce their position because of non-specifics with the ordinance. <br />Councilmember Chestovich felt that a lot of the trouble was from the fact <br />that the situation was new to everyone and that she intended to act for the <br />good of the people and to be responsive to their desires. <br />Councilmember Eggert explained that his concept of zoning is in opposition COUNCIL- <br />to what had been stated during the evening, that he felt zoning is a trust MEMBER <br />which the City holds on behalf of not only the adjacent property owners, EGGERT <br />but the City as a whole, that the trust should not be violated even if the <br />specifics of the zoning are changed, that in a PUD the density should not <br />vary much or at all from the density of the pre-existing zoning, and if <br />it is increased it should increase only as the result of certain amenities <br />that are granted by the developer and because of the way he concieves <br />zoning, he did not feel this PUD would meet his requirements for a change <br />from R-1 to PUD. He stated he is not opposed to PUDs, but is opposed to <br />this particular PUD because of the fact that the density has been <br />increased by a factor of more than two. Councilmember Eggert also <br />conunented on the opinion expressed by the developer that the project <br />would be cxot be affordable at a lesser density. He did not agree with that <br />opinion and felt that if the piece of _and cannot be developed at the <br />price the seller is asking, given the present zoning, then the price <br />of the land is too much. <br />Councilmember Eggert stated that relative to the question of amenities <br />and also other considerations that have been brought up, drainage, <br />traffic, recreation, open space, etc., it was his view that the whole <br />project has gone this far because the Planning Commission really was <br />not using any criteria, specific criteria, on which to base their <br />decisions. He felt that if density is a consideration, then the <br />Planning Commission or the City Council with the advice of the Planning <br />Commission, perhaps, should establish criteria so developers know <br />exactly where they stand before making a proposal that would get to <br />this stage and that the same applies to recreation, open space and <br />drainage. Councilmember Eggert stated he had expressed to many of the <br />residents who were in attendance, that the City does have the opportunity <br />with the PUD to address not only the drainage problem of the 26 acres but <br />also the drainage problems of the whole area and that the concept needs <br />to be explored in detail before any PUD is granted. He stated he, <br />personally, was in favor of a moratorium on any zoning changes in the <br />City until very specific criteria are established by the Planning <br />Commission with input of the citizens and presented to the Council for <br />adoption. This criteria would be to establish when and how certain <br />zoning changes would be allowed. <br />Mayor Warkentien stated he felt Council had enough inf ormation to make MOTION TO <br />a decision and called for the vote. Upon a vote being taken, the follow- APPROVE PUD <br />ing voted in favor thereof: Mayor lNarkentien, Councilmembers Larson and REQUEST <br />Ciernia, and the following voted against the same: Councilmembers Eggert DEFEATED <br />and Chestovich. Motion failed. <br />[1 <br />