06/10/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. :Councilman Murray answered that the purposes of the section were in a sense ,the purposes of the study itself. He said it was not the intent to take private 'property and he didn't read that ipto the section. He explained that the in- :tent was to preserve that very significant part of the city and if it couldn't be 'done in a way compatible with the purposes of this study and allow development at the same time then there was an obligation to develop a satisfactory way of ,resolving that problem. He didn't see it as a "taking" kind of recommendation. ':Councilman Hershner commented on the trend of government going from condemnation 'and fair reimbursement type of action when property was needed for parks, streets, :etc., to saying a zone change would be allowed if the property was dedicated for ;those public uses. He fel tprobably people wanting to develop were willing to give property for needed access, but he thought government was moving farther iaway from the public's paying for what it needed. Councilman Williams suggested staff might 109k at that guestion when bringing alternatives with regard to lot sizes. He thought it should be made very clear that what was being proposed was 'a condemnation sort of action rather than that of police power. . Mrs. Campbell noted that five areas were designated for parks imd that was clearly spelled out in the study. She said the public was well aware of the 'proposal because of previous hearings. She didn't see the PUD requirement as ;a threat to the property owners. Mr. Murray noted familiarity with the study ;he and Mrs. Campbell had because of their membership on the Joint Parks Commi ttee ' land first-hand knowledge gained from the public hearings. He aidn' t feel anyone 'thought of it as being "heavy handed." He said there was consistent comment from o~ers of large parcels that they would dedicate park property on their own initiative. He felt that was one of several ways the purposes of the study could be accomplished " toun~ilman Keller said that although confiscation wasn't mentioned and was not :the ultimate goal, wording of'the recommendations could lead to it. The ;proposal, he said, was for a trail park and that could involve about 40 acres. He noted there was no indication of width of pathways so there were no specifics :with regard to what would have to be dedicated, for public use. ! ;Mayor Anderson thought that consideration of details at this point would weigh : down the entire study in its purpose of preserving the South Hills. He suggested :the legal staff could develop some clarification of the question of dedication. :Mr. Hershner was in favor of staff's working on it. He said it was one thing !in working with a developer under PUD procedures to have him leave a portion of :his property in its natural state or vacant, but entirely different when telling ~one a certain portion must be dedicated for public use. That distinction was 'his concern. In answer to Mr. Saul, Mr. Hershner said he felt the modification :on specific recommendations for the Ridgeline Park was too broad and that c1arifi-~ cation there would be desirable. - ,Councilman Wood felt many other things in the study should be considered besides ;economics - drainage, erosion, slope, etc. And since there appeared to be con- Isensus on most of the study, he said, he would support staff's bringing back al ter na ti ves . 'Mr. Murray expressed concern about discussion of the modification presented ,on the Ridge1ine Park wi th regard to development. He wondered whether under the 'broader wording the Council would be discussing proposals that would not have qualified for discussion in the initial stages of the study. Mr. Saul said that ;the impression staff received from comments at the public hearing before the Council was that the original wording was ambiguous. He explained that it was ~n attempt to set forth a better standard to which a development proposal could ,be tied so that a judgment could be made as to whether the purpose of the study :was being met. In, answer to Councilman Murray, he said the rewording would not ,change the amount of property that could go through PUD procedure, it only re- ;defined the process. Manager noted that when the study was adopted it would be adopted as a statement of policy requiring implementation through specific language. Development of an ,ordinance in that regard could spell out definite kinds of criteria which would meet some of the concerns expressed. ~. Councilwoman Campbell expressed disappointment at the Council's reaction t;othe :recommendations. She hoped in future instances that Council members would be more receptive to committees' requests for comments so there would be more input :prior to the last hearing 'and the process would not be prolonged. Manager wondered whether Council desired distribution of a letter received since the public hearing from Don-Lee Davidson, Davidson Industries, which pointed ;out problems with properties in their ownership in the South'Hills. Council members wished to have the letter and it was understood copies would be made and distributed. ~\ ,~O 6(iO('J4 - 9