08/17/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

He reviewed several possibilities and options for City Council. The first possibility was a moratorium and referred to a memo from City Attorney's office regarding moratoriums which could not affect tentatively e approved subdivisions, of which there are nine in the South Hills area at this time. It could affect subdivisions which have been submitted but have not received tentative approval, of which there are six in that area. He noted Council's request for definition of a geographic area of concern, stating that the Staff could not do so until Council specified what its concerns were--the entire South Hills area as defined in the South Hills Study, or a lesser area; a concern regarding old growth Douglas firs, second growth, or all trees; or a concern regarding large trees or smaller trees as well. He said the staff had technical data to define the geographic area depending on nature of Council's concern. He noted from Attorney's memo that a moratorium should be used only for a limited time and for a specific purpose. He also noted Council had always requested the Planning Commission and Planning Department staff opinion before initiating a moratorium. The second option available to Council was reconsideration of previous policy decisions as to the extent of the use of the PUDs in the South Hills area. The advantages included a design team requirement, encourage cluster developments to preserve trees, and greater public involvement. The disadvantages included expected significant opposition from the developments sector, the effect on housing costs, the desire on parts of consumers for different types of housing, and concern from neighborhood groups to preserve single-family residences in their neighborhoods. The third option open for Council were certain amendments to the Land e Division Ordinance. One could allow removal of trees only within public rights-of-way or public utility easements, and only allow removal of trees after a building permit had been obtained. However, it would provide no guarantee that trees would not be removed. Mr. Saul continued that to move beyond such an amendment the Council would have to consider a further amendment that individual building permits be reviewed as to tree removals. He said this raised a philo- sophical issue of the legitimate extent of City review and whether City Council wanted to be involved in such a process, and major costs involved in both the private and public sector. I Mr. Obie expressed appreciation for Mr. Saul's presentation and the Attorney's memorandum. He felt it not practical to place a moratorium on development at this time. He had spent a great deal of time in the past week talking to three different groups of people: people living in the area, builders but not subdividers, and subdividers. He had come to the same conclusion that subdividers should not be allowed to remove trees except in the public rights-of-way and public utility easements, and trees be allowed to be removed after building permits were issued. He felt that would solve the bulk of the problem. He suggested a public hearing be held on such an amendment and allow the matter to rest for a period of time to see if that would solve the problem. e 8/17/77--9 ~2g