06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,of the total study area, and it was his feeling that to eliminate one-fourth of the South Hills area from individual construction, putting in'PUDs, was totally wrong. He suggested the study lacked some very good knowledge of the impact of carrying out the recommendations, ,that the indecision between whether four or seven acres was the proper limitation for exemption from planned unit development called for more specific input. He said there was strong indication that a parcel of 30 acres might be necessary for a feasible PUD in order to pro rate costs so people could afford to buy. He felt people in the home building industry should be supplying some of the information in the study since they were the ones furnishing the homes and supplying the capital to build them. Mr.Keller thought that more help was needed before implementation of recommendations that may not prove practical. . 'Councilman Murray thought it misleading to suggest the choice was between single-family residences and'PUDs since many of the PUDs comprise in large part ~sing1e-fami1y residences. He said they were not talking about eliminating single-family homes but were concerned about single-family structures in the South Hills area being too costly for a large portion of the community. .Mr. williams agreed that it would be costly and that it would probably be some time before there would be a demand for single-family sites in that area. ,However, his concern was that on smaller sites, five to seven acres, there :wou1d be nothing but apartment construction if the PUD requirement applied, and :he would rather see the options kept open for single-family structures. It was ,Councilman Hershner~s idea that probably it was the larger PUDs that included :single-family housing. He also wondered whether even the larger PUDs were heavily oriented to multiple-family even though there were some separate single: : uni ts invo1 ved . I , i . ,Planning Director pointed out the relationship between single-family and multiple-family units on sketches of several PUDs - Somerset Hills, Edgewood West Jimber Village, Ot'lkway. It W:~S b!-,qught, out: tbat ..tile largest - Some,r,set - had a total of 112 acres with the bulk of the units in multiple housing, but :the bulk of the 'acreage in single-family. 'Councilwoman Campbell expressed her conviction that the SQuth Hills recommenda- ,tions were'consistent with what the city was trying to do with diversi.fied housing.) .She pointed out that single-fa~ily development in the hill areas, besides being I ( ,quite expensive, would not provide the desired open space. She thought the I provision for multiple-family housing in that area would provide homes for ,renters - those who did not buy. If it was not desired to develop properties :in line with the city's policy and community goals, she said, perhaps it would !be better to rethink the community goals. :Councilwoman'Bea1 wondered whether single-family homes in the South Hills area :would be completely out; under what circumstances could property owners build single-family homes for themselves. Mr. Murray said the city did provide for that type of development, even above the 900-foot level. However, Mrs.Campbe1l :pointed out they would be very expensive and Mrs. Beal agreed, saying the cost 'would be out of reach of the middle-income person. . 'Further discussion led to the conclusion that there was no disagreement with the I concept of the study recommendations, rather there was question about details. Mr. Saul cited statistics on the number of four-acre or less sites in the study area and the percentage which were vacant. He said there had been no attempt to determine the number of parcels suitable for major subdivision versus minqr subdivision. Councilman Keller suggested appointment of a committee to include, builders and developers who would know whether the recommendations would prove :economically feasible. i' ., Mayor Anderson suggested that the planning staff be asked to bring back several alternatives for Council consideration before the committee process was started again. He thought if consensus then was that the staff suggestions ,-"ere not practical other people could be brought into the discussion. Councilman Hershner agreed with following that procedure. He noted the change in wording suggested in the Ridge1ine Park Specific Recommendations (II-1.b.) to permit development under PUD procedures above the 900-foot level when it could be demonstrated "...a proposed development is consistent with purposes of this section." He asked what the purposes of the section were. He expressed concern tha t tha t wording would throw it back into the ca tegory of previous objections - that development under PUD procedures would be allowed only if it was shown the public need would be served. He thought that,in an indirect way, would be obtaining property from ownerships above the 900-foot level. He ob- :jected to the philosophy of using the PUD requirement to force property owners to dedicate property for a public park in order to be able to do anything with their property. . \tB 6/j,O/74 - 8 ,I,j