05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

specifics with regard to the source affunds for acquisition of park properties, as well as maintenance costs. And that the type of development allowed (using PUD procedures) would be more visible from the city than single-family housing..' He recommended return of the study to the Joint Parks Committee for further consid~ration and that the Committee be~expanded to include representation from small home builders as well as individuals knowledgeable on taxation to deal with financial impact and evaluate the impact of land use development as it relates to the tax base. e~ Dick Unruh, 3225 Fillmore Street, felt the issue should be referred to the taxpayers since achieving the goals of the study would represent a substantial resource coming from virtually every citizen in the city. He was especially concerned with the preser- vation of land above the .900-foot ~evel from intensive development, saying that if there was'po plan for the open space or if resources were nqt'availab'le to maintain them they would probably deteriorate. . ( 1130 ) Tom Slocum, 1957 Potter Street, said that needs~expressed for refinement of the study were ignored resulting in transmittal to the Council in about the same form as in the preliminary report. He said' about 'the only change was revision of the urban service' area definition. He was opposed to the recommendations as submitted and presented a prepared ,statement (copies distributed to Council members') indicating differen'ces between the preliminary report and the- one-under consideration' together. with his recommendations for revision. ' , -. - ,., Short recess was taken. Stu Burge, Route 10, Box 250, opposed adoption of the recommendations. He felt it"would result in a dr.ast-ic 'increas.e' in- development of agricultural land "and a high degree of legal risk for the city. He maintained that a small group of people were trying to convince the Council that they represented the majority through neighborhood groups and that the decision on the recommendations should be left to the entire populations. He felt it an unwarranted restriction on private property at the expense of the land owner and' the majority of the taxpayers. He asked that Council members Campbell arid Murray abstain from 'voting on the adoption of the recommendations saying he felt their positions would be biased because of membership'on the Joint Parks Committee. Gary Leeper, 3895 Spring Boulevard, president of the Oak Hills Homeowners Association, presented copies of a prepared statement to Council members. He urged some modification _ exclusion of-connective~trails between park areas on the basis that they would represent an intrusion on prIvaey of residents and a threat to ecology of the hills, and use of the majJr subdivision process as an alternative to PUD procedures above the 700-foot level for retentionQof lower densities and more private housing. He said members of the Oak Hills group would rather forego open space in favor of residential development that would protect'all of the hills area: ." '. ,"/ Dave Pedersen, planning consultant representing Davidson IndUstries, 460 East 2nd'Avenue, saw the ridgeline park system as the key and central issue rather than development standards. It was his opinion that the method of park property acquisition would have to be deter- III mined before other' issues to' 'assure the 'practicabili ty of' development standards, espec- ~ ~; ially those applying to areas above the 900-foot level. . He urg~d careful--cons~deration of the ridgeline park-in reaching' a decision whether properties above theleve~ should be in city ownership or permitted to be developed.' OWners of large parcels of property in that area within the city limits, he said, should know how it was to be handled since it had been a matter of deliberation for some 'two years: He urged some decisio~ and detailing of cost figures within the next two months so prope~ty owners ~ould know whe~e they stood. . Otto Vonderhei t, 3240 South Louis Lane, identified hims!illf as a pri vate citizen, 'not (.1!l54) representing a client, in order to disassociate himself-from any interest in the is~ue_ as a member of his law firm in which. Councilman Hershner was a member. Mr. Vonderheit noted that 55% of the study'area was outside the city. He felt Councll adoption of recommendations reserving open space and placing PUD restrictions on property not within its judsdid:ion would be illegal. And he said it would be condempation without compensation should the city acquire property for open space through'r~qui~ement for dedication in the PUD process. He urged rejection of that specifi~ recommendation., Mr. Vonderheit thought consideration 'should be given to the unfairness of the balds of "visual assessment", that mentioned in the study as being made by people from their yards at the lower elevations, because of the short period during summer months when peop~e were in their yards. He urged the Council not to adopt an ove'rall 'undesir,able' plan which had .~ illegal,,,;unconsfitutional provisions. ~ Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe Street, expressed concern ~out the requir~ment for development above the 700-foot level. He asked delay of action on'the study and. expansion~ of the Joint Parks Committee to include attorneys, foresters, property' owners, ,etc. , gJving them a limited time in which to bring revisions which would riesuit in a better study. 5/20/74- - 4 1'51. ,,~