|
<br />I'
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Rick Cleveland, Attorney, 260 E. 11th, submitted a letter from another attorney, Robert
<br />H. Fraser, 777 High Street, which stated that, as former Vice-Chairman of the initial
<br />Citizens Advisory Committee to the 1990 Plan, he agreed with Mr. Green's plan as being
<br />in line wIth the original concept of the Committee to reduce scatterization outside ~
<br />the city of Eugene and increase the dens'ity within the City. .'
<br />
<br />Mr. Cleveland stated that the first request for rezoning the property in question was
<br />for R2 zoning, not R2PD. It was changed on the record at the request of Mr. Pearson.
<br />The request is then to approve R2PD zoning on 13 acres with the development of 145
<br />units. The architect on the project would be charged with planning a design which
<br />would be compatible with up to 90 additional future units. The .;Limitation of 14'5
<br />units is based on the present sewer capacity. He further mentioned that suggestions
<br />in the 1990 Plan indicate a specialized housing need should be met in this area and
<br />that the zoning as a concept would be compatible with more kinds of uses in the
<br />remainder of the opportunity area. Mr. Cleveland feels the area is right for
<br />development now. and that R2PD is clearly appropriate.
<br />
<br />Jim Saul, Planning Department, pointed out that, under R2PD, a maximum of 235 units
<br />could be constructed as opposed to 104 units under RA. The limitation of 145 units
<br />is temporary, based upon the temporary sewer system proposed to allow development of
<br />the property. It is the Planning Commission's feeling the property is not suitable
<br />for R2 since basic services are not present at this point in time for the maximum I
<br />allowable. The Planning Commission was also concerned about making a decision for
<br />R2 zoning in isolation from consideration of other properties in the area. It was
<br />felt a refinement study was necessary to determine the. nature of this particular ~
<br />opportunity area, and the Planning Commission could not justify such a study at this ,.,
<br />point in time. Mr. Saul stated that another criteria was the question of whether or '
<br />not there was a public need to rezone for this type of development and mentioned
<br />other available property areas that might be similarly developed.
<br />
<br />In ~a~~r to questions from Jim Korth, City Attorney's office, regarding the $255,000
<br />.f~gure, Mr. Draper said $255,000 was the price. Mr. Green paid for the property. Mr.
<br />Green does have it on the market at the present time for $280,000 but will retain
<br />ownership and develop it if rezoning is approved.
<br />
<br />Mr. Korth said it's not th~ position of the attorney's office that a cost analysis
<br />of the property is relevant. However, applicant would seek to introduce testimony
<br />to show rezoning was justified on the basis of that analysis.
<br />
<br />Manager stated. that, if economics of the ~e0elopment are submitted as evidence for an
<br />application for rezoning, it would seem the Council has a right to know the basis for
<br />the economics.
<br />
<br />Mr. Murray wondered if the applicant would need to come before the Council to request
<br />the addition of the other 90 units.
<br />
<br />Manager advised that, if the property is rezoned to R2PD, the maximum number of units 4It.
<br />allowable would be permitted if developed as a PD. Applicant could submit for PD .
<br />approval in stages of development, the first being 145 units and the second being the
<br />additional 90 units; or he could present the entire 235 units as a plan and only
<br />proceed with 145, approval being that of the Planning Commission, not Council, unless
<br />there was an appeal from a Planning Commission decision.
<br />
<br />A question was raised as to whether Council could permanently limit the number of units
<br />to 145, which the Planning,Commission could then designate as the maximum number, and,
<br />if the Planning Commission approved more than 145 units, the City Council itself could
<br />appeal and reverse the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Korth expressed awkwardness
<br />with imposing that type of limitation because, legally, if a zone plan is approved, the
<br />applicant is entitled to the maximum number of units allowable.
<br />~ I
<br />Mr.~Woodwondered if the property could revert to the previous zoning if not I
<br />devJioped within a.particularperiod of time. Manager said that, once the zoning is
<br />completed, automatic reversion could not be effected. It would have to go through
<br />the same Planning Commission - Council hearing process.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Campbell wondered what had happened to the applicant's 0riginal plans for a home
<br />for the aged on the property. Mr. Saul answered that, at that time, the concept of a ~
<br />home for the aged was not favorably accepted due to isolation of the site from many ~~
<br />facili ties. In answer to questions raised regarding approving rezoning with the - Y
<br />stipulation that the sewer system is adequate, Mr. Korth advised that, if a certain
<br />number of units are approved depending on the current status of the sewer system, it
<br />becomes then not a rezoning matter but one of relating land use directly to services
<br />and that is not always appropriate at this time of rezoning land.
<br />
<br />
<br />11/5/73- 2
<br />~1.~
<br />
|