03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16993. .. 2. Area at Bonnie View and Sarah Lane (annexed by Boundary Commission Final Order 183- Council Resolution 2179 5/14/73 - Allender) Public hearing was held with no testimony presented. Council Bill No. 461 - Withdrawing from Oakway Water District area annexed to City at Bonnie View and Sarah Lane was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number-only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All councilmen present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 16994. D. Laurel Hill Neighborhood Growth Plan ~~~e1 Hill Neighborhood-Growth" Plan - Planning Commission on'F~bruarY'5, 1974 recom- mended adoption of Laurel Hill Neighborhood Growth Plan, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members. Manager pointed out that adoption of the Plan would apply only to statements in the Plan labeled "Adopted Ci ty Policies." Portions desig- nated as "Position," "Goals," "Proposals," and "Diagrams" represented neighborhood desires and concerns which mayor may not be realized as the neighborhood developed. He said that if the Commission recommendation to adopt was approved, there would be a \' letter of transmittal to accompany the published copy of the Plan to avoid confusion. Manager noted public hearing on the Plan at the March 11, 1974 Council meeting. However, he said, members of the Laurel Hill Citizens Association were present at this meeting to answer questions: George McGuinness, chairman, 2680 Floral Hill Drive; Al Tussing, 2437 Riverview Street; and Alan Kimball, 2706 Floral Hill Drive. 0198. Councilman Williams expressed concern about the policy statement on density under Section I - Land Use and Future Urban Design (C-l~a). He wondered whether the provi- sion not 'to exceed an average gross density of four dwelling units per acre for the entire Laur?l Hill valley would fundamentally obligate the Council to. that density in other neighborhoods in the community. He wondered-too ;"'hether'there would be any... conflict between the provision for up to eight uni ts per acre under PUD procedures. and the controlled income rent density bonus in the City Code. He said that in terms of density the Laurel Hill area was one sector of the city in need of addi- tional subsidiz~d housing, and the density bonus was one of the tools by which that type housing could be provided. Planning Director explained that because of the steep terrain in a large portion of the Laurel Hill area four units per acre would mean development to a greater density than any other portion of the city with the exception perhaps of the central portion. The General Plan, he said, aimed at one to ten units per acre. An average of four units would allow a variety of dwell- ing types in this valley, taking into account the steep slopes. He didn't know whether the question of density in relation to income/rent provisions of the Code had been brought up before. However, he noted that the Plan stated it was the de~ _ sire of the Citizens group to work with the city to provide low- and moderate-income housing. Manager suggested an opinion from the City Attorney could be requested and available at the March 11 hearing. ~e Mr. McGuinness added that the question really put into focus the whole idea of neighborhood planning - tailoring the General Plan to specific neighborhoods. He said their request for an average of four units was based on the terrain, on problems of access to and from the valley, and on sewer capacity.- all peculiar to this par- ticular area. Mr. Tussing commented on sewer capacities and additional costs in- volved with higher densities. He felt ,allowing a higher density for low-income housing would only lower density in some other area of the city. He thought housing now in the Laurel Hill valley was largely low- and moderat~-income type, and he felt there should be alternatives to construction of "rabbit hut~hes." He said that feeling in the neighborhood led to the proposal in the Plan that attention be given to factory built homes to avoid concentrations of income groups. -- In answer to Councilman McDonald, Manager explained that the density in the Laurel Hill area now is .no different than the rest of the city. Zoning of property governs the densit~. Single-family building on a 6000 square foot lot results in about seven to, 3/11/74 - 2