|
<br />.
<br />
<br />:Councilman Keller agreed with Mr. Williams view that working with the recommendation
<br />would provide staff the opportunity for creating a better set of standards than could ,
<br />ibe prepared at this time. He wondered if staff's fee1.ing that they would be "haggling":
<br />,a good deal of the time resulted from their strong conviction that unit-housing should
<br />be encouraged. He thought if development in that area was approached with that con-
<br />viction then community support would not be evident because he had seen no over-
<br />whelming public support .for that type of building, nor for the park itself, for tha t
<br />matter. Mr. Keller felt the recommendation (3) would take care of concerns expressed
<br />in meetings to this point. He expressed appreciation for the information supplied
<br />in ,the curumtIl!emo withregardto proI!erties at diff(;r~nt eleva~ions. He wonderf:liJ.,
<br />however, when emphasis was placed on the number of vacant propert~es from 700-root ,
<br />elevation and higher, 'why the report took percentages on properties between the i
<br />ridge line and the 500-foot level. Mr. Saul, answered that computer data which
<br />follows section lines was used to arrive at the figures. The 500-foot elevation
<br />happened to follow section lines in many instances whez'eas the 700-foot level did
<br />not. Staff realized this at the time, but because manual calculation following
<br />actual section and parcel lines'would take more time it was decided to go ahead
<br />with the computer data.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Campbell, in ,answer to Mr. Keller's comment about public support, com-
<br />mented on the tremendous support she was aware of - a coalition of about 3000 people;
<br />'supporting the study and favoring its adoption without further modification. :
<br />Mr. Murray explained that his commen't about public des,ire did not necessarily
<br />mean the public wanted mul tiple-family development;: exc.Z usi vel y. ,And he did not
<br />,accept the premise that PUD requirements were synonymous with multiple-family hous-
<br />ing. He wanted to underscore his thinking that this recommendation would not
<br />cripple the study, but he thought it would be a mistake for which the consequences
<br />would have to be paid.
<br />
<br />comm
<br />i 6/5/74
<br />Approve
<br />
<br />./
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr.' Keller to amend the study by deleting
<br />the wording in the first recommendation contained in II. Specific Recom-
<br />mendations under Development Standards section'and substituting therefor
<br />the wording contained in the third recommendation of the June 3 planning
<br />memo in that regard (as shown above).
<br />
<br />Councilwoman Beal said she would vote for the motion on the basis that most of the
<br />:time PUD procedures would be used, but she didn't want to rule out other types of
<br />,development. She hoped that it would not alter the original purpose of the study.
<br />Mr. Saul explained that in making the recommendation under discussion staff felt
<br />~twould not substantially weaken the objectives of the study, considering the
<br />;various factors that would be taken into consideration in determining whether PUD
<br />procedures or standard subdivision would be followed. Mr. Murray commented that
<br />Ithe motion ignored the development already in the South Hills and it was erroneous
<br />I ,
<br />,to base the reason for passage on the need for single-family development.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />i Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Council members
<br />Williams, Hershner, Beal, Keller, and Wood voting aye; Council members
<br />McDonald, Campbell, and Murray voting no..
<br />
<br />~ayor Anderson explained there would be no further public input on this provision,
<br />ithat it wouid come to the formal meeting on June 10 as amendments to the motion on
<br />!the floor for adoption of the South Hills reco~endations.
<br />!
<br />
<br />. I
<br />
<br />l- ___'~~~''''__,",_", "......_, ......~.' ......__,.
<br />
<br />Manager called Council's attention toresoiutlon prepared for adoption of the South Hills'
<br />~ecommendations in line with action taken at the June 5, 1974 committee meering.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr.' Hershner to adopt the South' 'Hills'
<br />recommendation with modifications. Mo~ion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />"
<br />~ouncil members Murray and Campbell expressed their appreciation tdthe 'many citizens'
<br />providing in~ut at Joint Parks Committee deliberations, and to Jim Saul, plann~r, f9r tr~s
<br />effort and tlme spent with the Study. Mrs. Campbell eommented that adoption of the South
<br />Hills recommendations was extremely significant to the city, $qual to adoption of the
<br />1990 'General Plan.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Manager for plrposes of clarification 'asked that the record sh6w"thaT discussiontc:i this
<br />point should not be construed to mean the Council intended to abandonregutaruses of'
<br />propertyfo r all: lawful purposes, inCluding aestheti:c consideratioris ,nor did it 'creat~
<br />any obligation for expenditure Of pUblic funds except as the law woi.lln otherwise require.
<br />
<br />Resolution No. 2295 - Adopting South Hills 'recommeridat'ion' 'as amended, and adopting
<br />findings supporting the recommendations as set forth in
<br />preliminary draft of South Hills Study and official report of the Planning Commission
<br />dated April 9,1974 was read,by number, and title only.
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Motion' carried
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />unanimous,ly.
<br />
<br />'94
<br />--~~
<br />
<br />6/iO /74 - i3
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|