City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 04 15

Home Browse Search

were entirely exempt from the proposed guidelines. She felt there were some questions as to which' portions of the Gateway Guidelines apply vs. which portions of these proposed guidelines apply in a particular instance. Those had not been resolved. Sisk did not want to infringe on Koelbel's rights. He asked if there was a distinction on Parcel H as opposed to Centennial Valley. Griffiths did not have an opinion on that as she had not looked into it directly. She pointed out that under the proposed guidelines there is a statement that any property owner who has vested rights for development under a certain set of guidelines, if they can establish that, have right to do that. The decisions as to who does and does not have a vested right had not been made. Sisk asked, with the PUD that had been approve on Parcel H, how does that PUD dovetail with the proposed guidelines. Wood stated that his opinion at this point is that they are vested to the point where they have final PUDs on those lots. They have three or four lots that do not have final PUDs and those are not vested. Sisk told Martin that as far as having drive -ins on McCaslin, he would be opposed to that. Keany thought the title of the document was misleading, it is not "Design Guidelines it is "Design Guidelines and Standards." He stated that if there were concerns about whether this document is too s$ringent, then it ought to be just guidelines and not standards or go back to the committee to be followed up further and extended again. Levihn was concerned that there is a lot of vacant land by Albertsons that has been vacant for quite a while and a lot of citizens want it developed. He wanted to see more flexibility or go back and work on the different issues some more. He felt some of the points in the document needed clarification. Wood commented that his impression was that the City is at the threshold where they have established a standard, at least Planning Commission did in their initial work, and there would be much difficulty in reducing that standard any further. Davidson wanted clarification on the difference between guidelines vs. requirements and the authority of Council on the interpretation of those. Griffiths explained that these standards and guidelines are being adopted as a part of Ordinance No. 1242, Series 1997. They are ordinance requirements. If there is a violation of a mandatory requirement or standard, it is in violation of the ordinance and is enforceable as ordinances are. Violation of a guideline is not enforceable because it is not a mandatory requirement within the ordinance itself. 7