06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. c. :South HillsR$OOmmendCitions - Discussion continued from the May 20 formal CounciL meeting on Planning Commission recommendation for adoption of the South Hills ,recommendations in its official report of April 9, 1974. Council members, prior to committee meeting, toured several planned unit developments in the city. Councilwoman Campbell distributed copies of memorandum from the planning depart- mentcontaining suggested rewording of the Specific Recommendations for Ridge1ine ;park to provide for development consistent with the purposes of the study (II-1.b.), :and to provide that existing parcels less than four acres in size above the ' i700-foot level would not come under planned unit development procedures when ,site review procedures were followed (No.1 under Development Standards). Councilman Williams acknowledged that four acres was a reasonable size for PUD 'procedures under R-2 densities but questioned whether in the South Hills area 'that type of development would occur. He felt there might be a substantial 'number of sites five, six, or seven acres in size that would not successfully accommodate a PUD with a mix of housing. He wondered if the four-acre limit could be changed to six or seven, retaining site review procedures, to make the smaller sites more practical and still preserve the integrity of the area. In answer to Councilman Murray's question whether the suggestion was in reference to the 500~700 foot elevation, Mr. Williams said he was making the suggestion in terms of using site review procedures on all smaller properties to possibly six or seven acres in size rather than PUD for everything above the SOO-foot 'leve1 on properties larger than four acres. He noted the recommendation calling for PUD on anything .larger than four acres between 500/700 feet on more than 20% slope. I. j ( I I J J. /.i " - .~ i i I Jim Saul, planner, answered that the planners' concern was the desire to preserve! as much open space as possible and they felt the PUD procedure would accomplish i that. He felt it wbul"d be a question of trade-offs.. A number of multiple- ~.~ i family developments might result in preserving open space which otherwise would ,be taken up b1.l streets, drivewa~sl etc., for sinq1e-:fami1y units. He thought if. the parcels not developea. under UD were---Targer there should be criter~a deal~ng ,with slope also. John Porter, planning director, added that it would be neces- :sary to develop criteria so determination could be made at an early stage whether ,a development would be acceptable because in developing cluster type structures 'it would not be possib~e to change dwelling sites. He said both PUD and site 'review procedures were subject to public hear~ng so it would be important to establish criteria for careful evaluation of how a property would develop. Councilman Wood agreed with Mr. Williams' concern and suggested substitution of ;seven-acre parcels for four-acre parcels in exemption from planned unit develop- ,ment when site review procedures were followed. -- iMayor Anderson suggested that the planning staff be asked to recommend specifica- ! itions that would establish criteria for development in those instances. Planning: !Director said his department would like to have the chance to discuss the sug- i gestion with the Joint Parks Committee, also the parks department, before bringing any recommendations. I ;Councilman Murray had no objection to allowing reasonable exemptions from the PUD( ,requirement but he didn't want to defeat the purpose of the study. He was not ! sure of the impact of enlarging the size of properties exempted from PUD require-j ment and favored gaining more information before making the decision. ! /. :Councilwoman Beal asked whether owners of large tracts - 40 to 50 acres -would ibe able to sell off small portions for single-family residences if they didn't [want to develop the entire tract themselves at one time. She wondered whether !a person would be prohibitied from developing a 10- to 30-acre tract in single- ifamily residences to a density of three per acre, and whether there would be a \limit on the lot size. Mr. Porter explained differences between minor and major Isubdivisions when property is divided. He said that under the study recommenda- Itions a person asking for a minor subdivision so a portion of a property could ibe sold would be required to disclose what was intended for the entire prop~rty. !This, he said, would prevent sale of key portions of properties necessary to the !best overall development of an area. Mr. Porter said selling a portion of a :property for single-family development was technically possible but the cost for ,public improvements and facilities would probably make it prohibitive. Hesaid [the minimum lot size was 6000 square feet. He added that these were issues in- rvolving a series of questions regarding economics and would probably inVOlve IpoSSibilities of discussing the whole subdivision process. iCouncilman Keller commented on his research of the area which revealed that be- itween the urban service boundary and 2000 feet of the ridge line of the South ;Hills there were about 76 parcels of land five acres or less in size. About '65 we~~_.ov.:er fiveac~."---.H~!i~id.._aJx)Ut fo~of those parcels !_ep!~~!i~nt~(:L2?~_ \&!> 6/i0/74 - 7 ~..