05/22/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . ."~"".' 7"'<-~ . .' 3. That withi'n the designated study area', the maximum density permitted be limited to six (6) dwelling units per acre, with staging requirements until completion of the study. 4. That the Planning Comrr.ctssion withhold favorable recommendations for further annexations in the study area, except for those areas considered a public health hazard. 5. That the first report by the staff will be due six months after the date of study authorization. Reports thereafter should be made every three months, and the entire study period should not extend more than one year from the first report. 6. That planned unit developments be required with clustering of living units to provide for a corridor of public access for any ridgeline park proposal that might come out of the study. The recommendations come as the result of several public hearings on applications for planned unit developments containing as many as eight units to an acre. There was concern about the City's ability to service developments of that magnitude. Mrs. Campbell commented that she has attended many of the hearings concerned wi th the development of the area, and said she concurs with the recommendations. Mrs. Beal noted the original staff report recommended a limitation to four units per acre, whereas the pres(;?nt recommendation allows six. Manager said the Commis- sion feels PUDprocedures offer the best process for development of large pieces of land, particularly in hillside areas where there are design problems, but be- 'came convinced of the dubious economics of limiting'to a density of four units per acre. It appeared such developments would become standard subdivisions rather than planned unit developments. Since the period of limitation under consideration is no longer than one and a half years it was felt an increase from four to .six uni ts per acre would not make too much difference, but would allow some develop- ments already started and about which there might be a question of financial feasibility under the lesser limitation to go ahead. Planning Director said the hearings also brought out not only concern about traffic and external problems, but also about cutting of trees in that area. If PUD procedures are encouraged, there would be control in that respect. Councilman Hershner said he would abstain from discussion and voting since a partner in his law firm represents one of the proposed developments in the area. Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the Council adopt the interim plan for the control of development of property lying wi thin 2000 feet of the ridgeline in the southern portion of the City. Motion carried, Mr. Hershner abstaining. Comm 5/17/72 PUb Hrng It was understood the item would be placed in the public hearing section of the May 22, 1972 Council agenda. " . oj,,', Letter from Fred Cuthbert dated May 20, 1972 re: Hillside Housing Density was ~e- cei ved and noted that Council members also received copies. . _;' Marian Frank, speaking for the League of Women Voters, read a statement in favor::o;f the Planning Commission recommendation. Others speaking in favor of the recommenda- tion were Esther Leong, Route 4, Box 306, reading a statement on behalf of the '" Spencer Butte Improvement Association, and Michael Sprague, 231 East 12th Avenue';:,::::- Alan Seder, 2385 McLean Boulevard, supported views presented by Mr. Cuthbert in his letter, that limiting density will extend use of utilities - streets, sewers, more blacktop area, more tree cutting. He said multistory buildings are more adaptable to steep sites whereas single-family buildings tend to destroy. Wes Morgan, 2101 Monroe Street, was concerned in light of the gravity of the issue that a decisip;:".would be made without participation of all of the Council members, and asked that the item be tabled until the full Council is in session. Mayor Anderson explained that the presence of five members of the Council constitutes a quorum, so that it would be the decision of those present whether to take action, table, or po~t- pone. He said since this particular time is devoted to public hearing, it may be . they will take no action depending upon the testimony given and the inclination of the Council at this time. Mr. Morgan read a statement of the Chamber of Commerce containing a series of conclusions and recommendations on the interim plan presented, and again asked the Council to consider delay in its decision until all members are present. 1'10 5/22/72 - 4