Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Jim Saul, planner, described the study and recommendations resulting therefrom as a policy <br />base and definition of critical areas in the southern portion of the city to guide decisions <br />with regard to development in that area. He outlined modifications to the preliminary <br />study with regard to the ridgeline park concept, density, urban service area, .and <br />development standards: <br /> <br />Ridgeline Park - The.original statement of purpose.for preserving from development <br />all vacant land above,t;he.900-foot level was revised to clarify that not only areas <br />of visual significance 'were to be protected,but traiIs would be provided between <br />major recreation areas, and open space along the urban service area margin would".,be <br />provided. An exception was made to the original recommendation which excluded <br />intensive development'of major subdivision and planned unit developments to allow <br />single-family residences on single lots. Also, an exception was proviqed to permit <br />development under planned unit development, procedures when it could be 4emon- <br />strated the basic objectives could be achieved on a more suitable, portion of a <br />'pa:bti-cJ:1lar.;,property. Along with that recommendation, because of concerns expressed <br />that th~~wor"ding represented an attempt to confiscate private. property, and in order <br />to clarify and make clear that the city was not contemplating confiscation, the <br />recommendation was made that the Joint Parks Committee be instructed to prepare <br />cost estimates. and Cl-nanalysis of funding sources for acquisition of areas specified <br />for preservation. It was anticipated such a process ,would involve detailed <br />appraisa~s, but,that it would not be warranted until Council approval of the <br />concept itself, Specific recommendations were also,added,with regard to active- <br />use park areas. <br /> <br />De~sity - No modifications to the preliminary report were recommended by either <br />the Joint Committee or the Planning Commission although there were some sugg~stions <br />that there be no exception to the low",density standards for controlled. income/rent <br />housing. It was. felt tbat s;P1ce the city-had ado:pted CI..%"oli.cyof increased density <br />fop erR housing in the entiPe city., the Southern ~ortion' shoilla not be excepted. <br />Also, suggestions were not accepted with regard to possible,desirability of flexible <br />guidelines - letting design excellence or site characteristics, for instance, guide <br />the density ofo.the project. <br /> <br />Urban Service Area Definition - Recommended in the preliminary draft that the actual <br />urban service area be defined as the present city limits and that expansion to <br />be considered only if vacant property was substantially utilized or if the growth <br />rate exceeded that projected. Owners of timbered properties felt clear cutting <br />was the only answer to investment. in that area if annexation was out of the picture <br />and some urged the city to immediately' annex all property to the ridge line. That <br />suggestion did not gain favorable reaction from people owning sizeable properties <br />and the Committee therefore deleted the entire recommendation with regard to annex- <br />ation. It was recommended instead that future annexation would be based on ability <br />to provide public services and the previous maintenance of property as desirable <br />residential envi-ronment, the standard for determining "desirable residential <br />environment" to be the anticipated tree p_reservation ordinance. Other factors now <br />considered in deciding annexations yvere:;,also.:-to be taken into consideration. As <br />the result of deleting the original recommendation on annexation, it was necessary <br />to delete a number of others in the preliminary draft, all covered in the final <br />report from the Joint Committee. <br /> <br />Development Standards - As a result of hearings before the Joint Committee and the <br />Planning Commission, the requirement was added for planned unit development pro- <br />cedures on any parcel larger than four acres' characterized by more than a 20% slope <br />belOW the 700-foot level. <br /> <br />Mr. Saul noted that the final recommendations were adopted by the Planning Commission and <br />recommended to the Council on April 9::. He emphasized the-':fact that the study represented <br />a process orientation to.planning that did not attempt to make every decision, but would <br />,ppov.ide the .policy, data and the analytical framework on which to make decisions as <br />issues arose. <br /> <br />Public hearing was ope,ned~ <br /> <br />Mary Briscoe ,1822 -Ch?I'n~lton' Street, and Annable lU-tzhaber, 189_2 West 34th Avenue, <br />speaking,for the L~agueof Women Voters, both supported the study,recommendat~ons <br />and urged Council adoption. . <br /> <br />Ron Eber, 127 NortQ Lawrence, speaking for the Sierra Club, supported the recommendations <br />but expressed concern about the exception allowing rest~icted development. above the <br />900-foot l~vel. He called upo~ homebuilders and deve~oPers to co-operate in fully <br />implementing the pu!poses and re~ommendations of the study. ' <br /> <br />''''-k <br /> <br />5/20/74 - 2 <br /> <br />\50 <br /> <br />(0200) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />W" <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />(0545 ) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />