05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . e (2091) II ~ Councilman Hershner asked if an owner of property abbve'the 900-foot-elevation filed for a stan,dard subdivision -that met all criteria of the law and this study had been adopted, would the city: be in'.a position .:to r>eject that request .if that property owner did not dedi;cate open space. Mr., Saul answered that..would, be the case, except that if the. study was adopted the city wouid be dealing with PUD's rather than standard subdivisions. Mrs. ,8ampbell moved seconded by.,Mr~',M~ay to accept the Joint, Parks' Committee report on'the South Hills -study. In response to Councilman Williams inquiry with regard to assuming the prerogative of making the motion, Mrs. Campbell said she had' taken.the prerogative as Joint Parks Commi,ttee' chairman. She referred- to Mr_~ Burge's suggestion that. she' abstain from . voting on the study as a probable misunderstanding' that the Council'0n this issue was operating under Fasano regulations. She explained that the study was not a' zoning matter. In answer to Councilman Wood's. inquiry" about the' amount of land aboV-e. '!=h~ 908-foot lev'elwith .12% or less siope',"Mf.: Saul' sqid'ther~,..w,<?-2- appr~~irriately .15'90'or about., 130 acres. Mr. Wood then asked an out the exception for PUD's in that area and whether it was connected to stability of the soil. He wondered. about the effect of removing any reference to development based on elevation as requested by the Home Builders.' Mr. Saul answered that testimony in Committee hearings indicated development was preferable at lower elevations. He. said to remove any reference to elevation would leave no way of identifying critical areas of concern and no major standards. Recommen9-ations previously. presented were to substitute'slope factor of 30% which he felt would be as arbitrary as using the 900-foot elevation standard. Use of slope as criteria would eliminate the potential use of' a major portion of that area as active-use parks. To remove the 900-foot element would necessitate. revision. of the'entire study. Councilman Keller said it. was difficult to accept PUD'.s,as,the.only alternative, especially when it might ,cause extreme hardship on the developer of. small parcels. He was concerned too about the densities. Those and- other questions, he ,said, would probably cause him to vote against adoption even though he was convinced the study itself was of tremendous bene:li t. Councilman Hershner agreed, saying he too had substantial questions even though there was considerable work and very much good contained in the study. ,He,referred again " . to the recommendation with regard to development of properties above the 900-foot elevation restricted .to existing lots for s,ingle-family. residences. And to the' requirement for dedication in the case of PUD's, saying he was seriously concerned that that would be taking property without compensation. Councilman Wood supported the plan itself but thought more detailed. consideration of concerns raised would be helpful. He didn't suggest a prolonged consideration but at the same time saw no emergency calling for immediate' adoption of the plan. Councilman McDonald said, he would, prefer amending the'motion to send the' matter back to the Joint, Parks Committee. He thought there was consensus on the plan itself but felt reconsideration to take into account testimony heard at thi~ meeting was important. Mayor Anderson referred to the Laurelhill study on which the Council was agreed as to concept and where a Council subcommittee was' appointed toworLwith members of.the group. He suggested appointment of a Council. sub commit t'ee to go through the areas of concern on this study and-come back' tOe the Council with a final,document. Councilman Murray said he recognized that other Council members'were not as familiar with the study as he and Mrs. Campbell, but he questioned the appropriatene~s of creation of a new committee to go through the plan. He thought referral to the Joint Parks Committee would be the ,logical,move. Mayor Anderson suggested then that discussion in a committee-of-the-whole work session would give the informality necessary to clear,up any questions and to more expeditiously handle, the matter; Councilman Williams said there wel?e two areas of concern to him - he would like to have the city attorney's opinion with regard to the condemnation,~uestion on PUD's, and he thought a tour of existing PUD's.. in the city in which there was single-family. development w,ould be of benefit. Hesa).d he was thinking of the expense to owners of small parcels having to develop under the PUD regulations, and that,before a decision was made requiring PUD regulations for all development he would like to, see how it would apply on the ground. , Councilwoman Campbell had n,o' objection to Mr. Williams' suggestion" however she ,thought a lot was being asked of the Parks Committee. She felt if the Council wanted to take on the exhausting work, staff could make the refinements desired. She called attention '55 5/20/74 - 7