05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/ (1565) . e (1675 ) (1676 ) e (1708) (1744 ) It ~ Public hearing. 'was c}.:osed, there pelng no further testimony. , . , Jim Saul responded :to 'theobj ections raised.. With regard, to ,claim of illegality, he said all of the' 'recommendations. supmi tted had been reviewed by ;the City Attorney's office'an~- a~surance' given that .no legal problems would be incurr~d. The effect,of PUD requirements for development above t~e 700-foot l~vel; he'said, would not eliminate single-family housing, PUD's can ~~d d<? inclu.de single-family units, although it was F~obably .tr~e that it would tend to diminish- the amount and lead to a greater emphasis on cluster type developments, either townhouse condominiums or apartments. He tho~ght, however, that ~esult should be considered in the light of existing conditions - greater degree of slope at'higher el~vations,greater visibility, more severe soil and geological consideratiohs, necessity for cleararice of more vegetation on steeper slopes to permit constru~tion. Tradit~o?ai -supdivisions with standard streets and drive~ays would have ~ significant ef~ect on the character of the hills. . He added t?-at although the, cluster type, development, would probably increase there would :also be a proportionatel:y"' greater amount of open space which would become a trade .off for; the singie-famiiy lot. 'Further,staridard &Ubdivision development in the hills WQ,uld -result in an extremely low density - one" or two' units:=: to the .acre - and Mr. Saul. thought 'a, serious consideration should be whether that level' of density was desired'in view'6f'the overall General'Plan goal 6f a concent~ated Urban service area. The PUD requirement also was an attempt to accommodate in an adequate' fashion the needs of an increasing population which the community'will be facing. With regard to the increased cost of housing because of PUD development; he .said that'situation already exists in the South Hills area - none of the single-family construction occuring there is designed' for the moderate':':' tolow-ihcoine range. He thought only through planned unit developments was there a chance of achlevfng' lower 'income housing. With regard to. objections to preservation' of open space: areas above I the 900-foot level, including access, Mr. Saul said response was adequately made in the final report of the Joint Parks Committee. Councilman McDonald asked ifiit was the intent of the rec6mmendations that low-cost housing be constructed betweeri;~the 700~'and 900-foot l'evels~ Mr., Sai.1l replied that there was no relationship between. low-cost housing ahd the:700-foot. level development requirements, that in line with stated city policy housing related to the CIR ~xemption could occ~ wherever develop~ent could occur .U?der this'study~ Councilman Williams said he was unaware that PUD's:contained single-family residential units and' wondered to what extent single-family residences would be'possible in the South.Hills if the study' was adopted. Mr. Saul referred to some existing PUD's containing single-family units. He had no exact figures but assumed on the basis of past developments that about a fifth of a PUD could be devoted to single-family residences. The resulting density of about three, more or less; to the acre could be picked up on other portions of the site. Such developments vary, he said, some having traditional lot arrangements, others followirig a circular' lot concept'withcommon open space. . The variations depeI'ld to a great degree' upon' the' desTgn 'u'eam: but usually' place a .greater emphasis" upon common open space and greater. mix of hOUsin~ types'; Mr. Williams referred to'a recent. Salem case where the courts declared the city could not prohibit'development of' land 'until a public agency had money to: buy it.. He', wondered" about the recommendation in this study calling for city acquisition of land above the 900~foot level' and wondered about the legality of preventing development until the city could acquire it for park purposes. Mr; Saul replied that if the Council adopted the concept of preserving that area for park purposes one recommendation was that the Joint Parks Committee immediately develop cost figUres for acquisition of those properties. Then it would be a responsibility of the city to proceed with that acquisition. He said. that the majority of those properties recommended"for preser- vation as open space 'lie outside' the city,- so there is -a relatively limited amount of property the city is faced with buying that lies within the city. He verified Mr. Williams' statement that if the city doesn't arrive at some decision on funding for acquisition then it is not intended to continue the moratorium on development in that area. ,.' ' Councilman Murray'said he had no. intention:.::of abstaining from the vote' as' s'uggested by Mr. Burge. : He felt his service. on' the Committee, which would best 'qualify him to vote because of his knowledge of the issue, was as 'charged by the Council and he was meeting that obligation. He discounted the objections basedoh the 'amount .of developable land above the 900-foot level"marked for open space calling attention to the small percentage of ,that land having a 12% or less slope. He said that"the study did aQ:.low exceptions based on strong valid criteria ~'development above the 900-foot level would, be allowed when the developer could demonstrate it would better meet the obje'ctives of the study. Statements that the 900-foot Hone was too' arbitrary, he questioned' because ne felt it was a matter.of degree - if. ,there was no. definite..a..ine then it would seem that where preservation.wouldoccur'would take continual analysis of individual properties~ The Committee, he sa1d, felt properties above the gOO-foot level were of greatest visual impact, provided an excellent buffer, and were'valuable for recreational use. ,~~ 5/20/74-5