1968 339- 485 _ 1-8 to 4-15-1968

Browse Search

378 Discussion of proposed amendment to Article 46, Ordinance No. 1130, "Planned Development Permit_" Council was advised Planning Commission held a public hearing on their Resolution of Intention to amend the Planned Development provisions of Ordinance No. 1130, on January 23, 1968, copies of which proposed amendments had been submitted to Council for study. It was also noted that, if no further changes were ordered by the Council, the matter could be set for public hearing before the Council. Discussion and questioning of further details of proposed amendments followed: Section 46.11 on expiration of a Planned Development Permit in five years from date of granting unless otherwise provided by the Council. Planning Commission members gave reasons for proposing this amendment, such as possible transfer of ownership during development period, variance in size of areas concerned with Planned Development Permits from very large to small areas, but allowance pro- vided for Council's determination for lengthy projects. Point also covered that if a Permit not used within one year, it would automatically terminate without Council action. It was noted Windsor Gardens project was the only Planned Development Permit which had been approved and now in development stages, but had no time limit set. Section 46.7(c) Modifications, with specific questions with reference to density increases and exceptions which could result in being incompatible to the adjacent zoning uses, and if proposed amendment did provide safeguards to surrounding property owners as to uses proposed in a planned development. Planning Director explained how proposed amendment would restrict proposed uses which must be intended for convenience of occupants of proposed development, and discussed certain other guidelines which made this proposed section more restrictive. He also discussed point that this amendment had deleted the 5/7ths control vote by Council for approval after a full research had indicated fact this would not be meaningful. questions also asked concerning Commissions reasons for recommending provision for granting 20% higher density as an attaction to a developer. Commissioners reported this had been an unanimous recommendation in order to encourage use of a planned development, but outlined in further detail the requirements necessary for open space, etc., which must be applied before this consideration given. They pointed out that 20% is a maximum increase, not to be construed as an auto- matic grant. Discussion held also on points under consideration when reviewing any planned development application, and if features proved less desirable than a conven- tional subdivision, application should be denied. It was also noted planned development could be carried out by rezoning, but it was felt this proposed amendment would set guidelines and provide a means for Planned Development Permits. 29'9 10 29'9E j*