03/11/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Associa bon reasons for presenting the Plan. They were "asking for a flexible a Ed tu&; toward citizen involvement in planning. He said,a look would.be taken at that state- ment also to see whether something more definite could be worked out. Councilman williams wondered if the city would be required to refuse building per- mits on properties when a density of four units had been reached. Mr. Tussing ex- plained the goals was an average of four units for the entire valley. He said that average on some of the slopes would be unbearable., so it was considered a tradeoff between the slopes and those areas where a higher than four-to-the-acre density could be accommodated. Councilman Keller said statements in the Plan with regard to street construction led him to believe the neighborhood W04ld rather be isolated, and he was not in favor of that. He wondered whether the proposals with regard to sidewalk construction and off-street parking were to permit children to play in the streets. Mr. McGuinness explained that the proposal for sidewalks pertained directly to the hillside develop- ments. He said normal conditions for street rights-of-way would not apply in those areas, requiring retaining walls, plantings, etc. They favored encouraging alter- nates to the traditional approach to sidewalk construction. Mr. Keller felt serving the public in the best way possible should take priority over any neighborhood's wishes for. an ideal situation. He felt if all of the pro- posals in the Plan were carried out and became city policy for the entire community it would result in neighborhoods living as individual cities, and he felt that would be an impossible situation. Mr. McGuinness said"any neighborhood would have physical characteristics which would call for different treatment. He noted the uniqueness of the Laurel Hill valley surrounded on three sides by hills and said the proposals in the Plan did not appear' to be an island approach for that particular area. Very few neighborhoods in the rest of the .city, he said, had physical characteristics similar to that valley. He noted the uphill battle of the Citizens Association over the past four years attempting to get governmental recognition of that peculiar- ity rather than applying precise limitations placed on the city as a'whole. Manager noted that the proposals under discussion (Section II - C-l/3) would not be adopted as city.policy. They were neighborhood proposals only and would be desirable goals; not something the Council would be committed to at this time. It was understood the entire Plan would be a subject of public hearing at the March 11, 1974 Council meeting. Conn 2/28/74 Pub Hrng Manager explained preparation of a resolution (No. 2263) for adoption of the Laurel Hill Plan, should that be the Council's desire, to eliminate any conflict or ambiguity with regard to. controlled income rent density provisions in the City Code. He again pointed out the Plan- ning Connission's understanding that recommendation for adoption of the Plan would apply only to statements in the Plan labeled "Adopted City Policies." Portions designated as "position," "Goals," "Proposals," and "Diagrams" represented neighborhood desires and concerns which may or may not be in accordance with City policy, and were to be considered in decisions on specific projects as they occurred in development of the Laurel Hill area. Public hearing was opened. . David Hoffman, chairman of'the Eugene Planning Commission, read the Commission's letter trans- mitting its recommendation for adoption of the Laurel Hill Plan, saying it was the first of several neighborhood plans anticipated. The letter also pointed out that the recommendation was for adoption of only those sections labeled "Adopted City Policies." However, recognition of specific statements on neighborhood position, goals, proposals, and diagrams as part of the PaIn was requested. George McGuinness, 2680 Floral Hill Drive, chairman of the L~~rel Hill Citizens Association, introduced members of the Association speaking for adoption of the Plan: Al Tussing, 2437 Riverview Street; Alan Kimball, .2706 Floral Hill Drive; and Charlotte Minor, 2250 Riverview Street. Mr. McGuinness recounted the history of formation of the Laurel Hill neighborhood group, also reasons for and method of development of the Plan to preserve the character of the Laurel Hill valley. He cited contacts with governmental agencies at different levels gathering informa- tion with regard to air and noise pollution, housing, river pollution, etc. The Plan, he said, .supported the 1990 General Plan and City policy on neighborhood organizations. It met the re- quirements of the City and had the approval of the Planning Connission. Also, the Plan had been approved conditionally by Lane County Commissioners (a portion of the valley lying out- side City limits). Mr. McGuinness connented specifically on housing dispersal policy, Laurel Hill's community school, bike and foot paths, soil, ~ topography, current public rights- 7' 3/11/74 - 4 . . 0198 ~ ~ 0300 --