PC 07/13/77 - Laserfiche WebLink

would preclude the Planning Commission from making any other decision re- garding consistency of the project with the General Plan at the tentative map stage. It was his opinion that Condition #3 of the staff report would be invalid, since it would condition future zoning as to density. He concluded his remarks by stating the entire matter could be resolved by the applicant first applying for and receiving a General Plan amendment for the property at Valley at Northway. Chairman Butler then summarized the situation before the Commission 1) whether the two separate parcels can be considered together, and 2) is the application in conformity with the General Plan. Next, Mr. Dudley Frost, representative for Morrison Homes, spoke. He pro- vided the Commission with background information on this case. He does not feel this application is an attempt to circumvent the General Plan. He pre- sented a 1969 site plan which showed approximately 41 acres of land owned by Morrison Homes. He described the properties on the site plan. From that drawing, came a zoning action sanctioned by the City Council about December, 1969, into the PUD District. Morrison Homes has been attempting to follow through on that zoning, since that time. It is not Morrison Homes' intention to propose now or in the future high density apartments. He admitted that the General Plan text for residential densities did not allow them the flex- ibility being proposed, since Medium Density calls for 4.7 and High Density 15. He felt that phasing of the development is an entirely appropriate part of the planning processes. City Attorney Scheidig rebutted those remarks pertaining to the PUD proposal approved by Council in 1969. He did not feel the City should be "ruled by the dead hand of the past." The Planning Commission is bounded by the present PUD ordinance. He felt that the Commission should not 1) allow properties not contiguous to each other geographically to share in combina- tion of density determinations 2) that this property should not be considered until a General Plan amendment is sought for and received and 3) the Planning Commisson should not take the position that the Valley Avenue property can be rezoned at this time on the assumption that the property on Black Avenue will develop at high density in order to meet the General Plan density re- quirements. The Commissioners asked what sort of a delay would Morrison face by applying for a General Plan amendment first and was told it would prolong the matter by about two months. Mr. Frost asked whether there was room for the Planning Commission to make a finding that this project as proposed conforms to the General Plan. The City Attorney stated that there is room for interpretation, but he would not urge them to make a finding at this time on the proposal before them. He recommended that the applicant go ahead and apply for the General Plan amendment and at that time, the Planning Commission could establish the appropriate range for Medium Density Residential development. Chairman Butler asked Secretary Harris as to whether the property could be considered High Density Residential on the General Plan. Secretary Harris replied that the applicant because of the manner in which the General Plan test is written does have a problem. This development is borderline from a density standpoint and can be compared to the MacKay Townhouses and the -6-