06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

vote was taken on the motion to add the recommended wording. Motion carried unanimously. ~iscussion turned to the recommendation for development standards calling for PUD procedures for all major development (development in excess of minor partitions) 'above the 700-foot level, previously modified to except existing parcels smaller 'than four acres when site review procedures were followed. . Planning staff in its June 3 memo recommended (1) adopting the Joint Parks Committee original recommenda- 'tion; (2) adopt'ing the previous modification; (3) revising the recommendation so: "All major developments (developments in excess of minor partitions) occurring on property above an elevation of 701 feet shall be reviewed by the Planning Director to determine if standard subdivision procedures, site revieYl prQcedures, or_p,lanned. unit development,procedu~€!...~__sl-}ould, b,e \--' required. In reaching a determination, the Planning Director shall evaluate the following factors: (a) the potential for surface movement; (b) the view potential qf the property; (c) the nature of existing vegetation; (d) the nature of surrounding development; and (e) the nature of the development proposal. The decision of the Planning Di- rector shall be appealable to the Planning Commission and thence to the City Council." :(4) revising recommendation in (3) to delete reference to standard subdivision ;procedures; or (5) revising recommendation in (3) to specify it applies only to :parcels larger' than four acres with automatic si te review procedure for parcels 'smaller than four acres. Icouncilman Williams said he was satisfied with the solution provided by the [third recommendation. He felt it would give better planning control on a parcel- !by-parcel basis than the previous recommendation tied to four-acre parcels, and 'it provided for appeal to the Planning Commission and the Council. Assistant lManagersaid staff would prefer the original recommendation, but if modification was to be made the third one on which Mr. williams commented would be their choice. ,Mr. Saul said there was some reluctance about the recommendation (3) because staff :felt a considerable amount of time - staff, Commission, and Council - would be spent ;'in reaching decisions on best development of particular parcels. One advantage 'of the original recommendation was that it would eliminate any of that potential~ although the new recommendation would permit consideration of individual properties rather than making an overall judgment in advance. Planning Director added that staff's main concern was the time factor~ He thought though that if problems did arise in working under that recommendation staff might come back to the Council with a set of standards on which to base decisions sq that there would not be an appeal on every development proposed. ~Councilman Wood was in favor of the recommendation. He felt decisions on individual , :properties would be more suitable, considering diversity of concerns - soil condi- tions, slope, etc. He preferred seeing some single-family construction rather than entirely apartment construction if it could be accomplished without going :contrary to the study itself. . ;Councilman Murray opposed it. He shared the planners' concern that the recommenda- ition would set off a continual battle. And he didn't think it good judgment to try ;to get around planned unit development in that area because he fel t that was the 'best mechanism for getting the type of development desired by the public. He noted ;the number of existing single-family dwellings in the South Hills and ample provi- sion for further single-family construction under PUD requirements. Added to that, ~e said, was all the existing property in the rest of the city suitable for single- family construction and vacant. He felt reasons set out in staff's memo as to why ~he Joint Committee initially selected the PUD requirement were valid. .He cited ~tudies reviewed in a publication - ,Local Government Policies for Urban Development - ,which indicated cluster type housing more economical for all - developer, owner, a~d taxpayer. He felt the recommendation under discussion would run the risk of development by conventional standards of a majority of the property between the :700- and 900-foot levels. Mr. ,Murray favored the initital wording contained in :the study in this regard. ,Mr. williams recognized the potential for "haggling" in reaching decisions on prop- erty development under the recommendation, but he felt after three or four develop- ;ments more concise standards could be written than he was willing to write at this itime. Hecpmmented that he knew of no time the Council ha~ not approved use of PUD iprocedures, it had always been supportive of that type of development. He had no ,intent of trying to abolish use of PUD procedures, he said, but felt that w~en it 'was not logical, and was unfair or impractical, then other options should be available.~ " ~ :Councilman Wood didn't see the recommendation as allowing standard subdivision !throughout the South Hills area. He did believe that all high-rise construction !would,be contrary to public desire and that some flexibility in decisions for that ; area would be preferable. "3 6!i0/74 - i2 . . . . / ~- J