03/11/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY OM CIL MINUTES - March 6, 1985 B. PUBLIC BEARING: Item a) Extension of Urgency Ordinance (continued): The following addressed the Council in support of the extension of the urgency ordinance: Wendy Hearn14221 Miranda; Mrs. Judy Carico, 25311 O'Keefe Lane; Mrs. Carol Gottlieb 24290 Sue erhill• and Fran Stevenson, 26989 Beaver Lane. Council reiterated the findings for the urgency ordinance as stated in Ordinance #292 and stated that at this time no change had been made to the ordinances. Adoption of the ordinance before Council would mean that Council would review the plans for projects over fifteen feet. The importance of the principles as set forth in the General Plan was also emphasized. Rydell expressed serious concerns over the length of time of the extension before Council, specifically 10 months and 15 days. The City Attorney reported that the Council could repeal at any time by ordinance the ordinance which had extended the urgency ordinance. MOTION SEC[xIDID AMID CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by Fuhrman and passed unanimously to close the public hearing regarding extension of the urgency ordinance. MOTION SBCONDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Rydell, seconded by van Tamelen and passed ,unanimously to waive further reading of the ordinance. MOTION SECONDED AMID CARRIED: Moved by Dronkert, seconded by FUhrman and gassed by the following roll call vote to adopt Ordinance #295 adopting as an urgency matter the first extension of Ordinance #292. AYES: Mayor Allison and Councilm mhera Dronkert, FUhrnan and van Tanelen NOES: Councilmember Rydell C. STUDY SESSION - CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION - SITE DEVEMPM1NTIT 0RDrW4CE Jeff Goldman, Connnerly & Associates, presented an outline to the Council and Planning Commission o e a t Site Development Ordinance. Subpart 1 was a statement of purposes. Subpart.2 covered permits and it was noted that another level of threshold would be covered by the Conditional Use Permit process in addition to the administrative review process and site development process. Subpart 3 covered grading; Subpart 4 addressed drainage and erosion control; Subpart 5 covered pathways. Under subpart 6, building siting, view protection and ridgeline preservation, it was agreed to change the words 'completely conceal' to 'render inconspicuous'. Under subpart 7, Architectural review for height and color' it was agreed to change the height limit to seventeen feet from fifteen feet. In addition the issue of 'reflectivity' needs to be researched, i.e. what threshold should be used and what impact does the Solar Rights Bill have on the ordinance. In discussing subpart 8 on landscaping, Commissioner Carico suggested site development review for fencing and also suggested the formation of a Land- scape sub -committee as part of site development. The Mayor suggested that the site development cxi ttee should make a recommendation to the Planning Commission on this matter and then it would go the Council for approval. It was further noted that the height of mature plants should be addressed in the site develop- ment ordinance and the rern,; re ent for a written statement of plants be eliminated. Regarding this, the Zoning Administrator would keep a list of plants for informational purposes. -2-