06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

... ..'-,-" Councilman Wood took exception to Mrs. Campbell's comment about lack of Council input until this time. He thought it unrealistic for individual members to stay abreast of every step. That was a subcommittee's purpose, he said. Also, until an issue came to the Council as a body and details brought out in public hearing it was difficult to understand and analyze the positive and negative criticisms. -- /""" -. It was understood staff would return alternatives with regard to possible modi fi ca tions of lot si zes requiring p1a,nned uni t development or si te review procedures, and response to the concern about requiring dedication of property for park use in the PUD procedure. ; Comm 5/29/74 Approve .-""'-...;.- South Hills Recommendations - Copies of planning department revised recommendations iwere previously distributed to Council wi th regard to expressed Council concern about taking of private property in implementing the South Hills study. Also, with regard :to concern about requirement for planned unit development procedures on all prop- erties above the 700-foot level except for parcels smaller than four acres. , 'With regard to the concern about possible taking of private property (requiring dedication for public use in return for PUD approval) planning felt any modification 'to the present wording would substantially compromise objectives of the study. 'Instead, it was recommended to add at the end of the Ridgeline Park section "It is ,the legislative intent of the City Council that the recommendations of the Ridgeline ; Park $ction of the South Hills study be achieved through clearly constitutional means."! Councilman Williams wondered whether the addition would mean anything. He felt it ~question of when police Rower was properly exerc~_and when riqht of eminent domain'was'proper,1y exerciseq;-arid that the language, proposed'l'Iould not substan- ;tially change anything. Assistant Manager ~greed that it was a question that could ;end up in the courts but thought there might be some advantage to stating publicly ;that it was not the Council's intent in implementing this study to take property iwithout compensation. .--------: . 'Councilman HershneL could!t see where the additional language would add anything of substance. He expressed concern also that adoption of the South Hills study ,was referred to as "essentially a policy statement" (referring to staff's comment 'under 1. of June 3 1974 memo). He felt the thrust of that comment was to say that policy statemen~were really not laws or ordinance, which was true, but he be- .lieved that adoption of a policy statement should be fairly stable, that it would ~have significant impact upon what is done in the way of enacting ordinances. He was still concerned about the statement that development under PUD procedures would be allowed only when it w~s consistent with objectives of the Ridgeline Park section. 'because those objectives were considerbly other than just preservation of the wooded iareas and view from the areas below. The study made reference to active type park trail system and other uses, he said, which m~de it appear a policy was being :developed requiring an owner of property above the 900-foot level in effect to so :develop his property that some of it was available for active-use park areas. :Mr. Hershner felt theLe should be some statement included to say that so far as possible a planned unit development should be designed in a manner to preserve the pristine nature of the South Hills without reference to all the other purposes re- ,ferred to in the study. . :Councilman Murray said he was sure it was not planning staff nor joint comnattee .intent to take the word "policy" lightly, that it was taken very seriously and thought to be something that would be followed. He said the initial recommenda- ,tion was considered to be within the intent of the charge given - that there was to be no development above the 900-foot level. Even with the previous modifica- ,tion, the idea still was not to have massive development above that level. He again called attention to the voluntary offers from property owners to dedicate property 'primarily for trails, and noted that there were opportunities for trade offs for ;density rights and access, which he felt 'was a fairly well established precedent ! . .in other areas .for bike paths, etc. He agreed the added language didn't change 'anything and was happy that it didn't, because to do otherwise he felt would :raise questions about the capability of accomplishing the purpose of the study. 'Councilman McDonald referred to staff's statement under 3. in the June 3 memo and :asked if the city would be obligated to buy properties above the 900-foot level :for park purposes. He also asked clarification of "credit for density." ;Assistant Manager explained that the study did contemplate acquisition in some :areas, and alternatives for method of acquisition would be considered when im- plementation of the study was commenced. Those alternatives could include 4IIr ,dedication or donation, allowing greater density and thus greater return on in- 'vestment in approval of a development for property conveyed for public use, out- right purchase, etc. Anyone of those methods could be used to acquire properties. Mayo~ Anderson wondered whether thece was obligation to return the study to the ; Planning Commission if amendments were adopted. Planning Director answered that the changes to be considered would not change the basic thrust of the report and i unless there were substantive chang~s there would be no need to send it'back. 191 6!J.~!~4 -10 '~