|
<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 w.as 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 />
|