Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br />EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br />August 12, 1974 <br /> <br />./ <br /> <br />411I Regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was ~alled to order by <br />The Honorable Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on August 12, 197~, ln the Councl1 <br />Chamber with the following Council members present: Tom Williams, James. Hershner (left <br />early), H. C. McDonald, Wickes Bea1, Beth Campbell, Robert Wood. Councl1 members absent <br />were Gus Keller and Neil Murray. <br /> <br />r <br /> <br />(0005) Ma:yoy.An.c:terson recognized the presence of members of Boy Scout Troop 79 working ,on ~ <br />their Civic Merit badge. <br /> <br />I - Proclamation -;Canvassing votes cast in August 6, 1974 election to exceed the 6% <br />limitation by $2,666,746 for 1974-75 budget was read showing passage of the measure <br />by a vote of 5,493 "Yes" - 3,517 "No". <br /> <br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to accept. the proclamation-:, <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />(0048) II - Public Hearings , Jf _. . <br />A. I coa'e'~AinEinament re: Cluster Subdivisions - Recommended by the P1ann~ng Comm~s- , <br />1'5ion June 24, 1974. Copies of official report were previously distribu~~d to '1 <br />~ Council members setting out recommended amendments that would re~ax requ~rements! <br />in RA and R-1 districts on lot area, lot coverage, and yard requ~rements to per-! <br />lmit cluster type subdivisions of four acres or less in total gross ar~a. The I <br />,amendments would provide for site review designation, covenants ensur~ng use of j <br />,semi-private open space by all occupants of such a subdivision, and maximum, f <br />, densi ty of four u~i ts to _t~e .acr~.. ,. _. ., "..... . ~ , <br /> <br />John Porter, p1anni'ng director, said the proposal would provide.' lor ai;i-v,~~opmen:r-- <br />!of many odd-shape properties four acres or less in size which, could not be'. de- <br />'i veloped in a conventional manner and which would not qualify' for development <br />under PUD procedures. Site review procedures would provide an opportunity for <br />'adjacent property owners to express concerns, although site review approval would .; <br />not require public hearings and lengthy process_ing which applied in developing .\ <br />under PUD procedures. Mr. Porter said there was sqme concern among the Planning' I <br />Commissioners tha t a maximum densi ty of four un-i ts to the acre was too low. How- ! <br />ever, planning staff felt that a review after a year or so to determine workabilit~ <br />of the provisions would provide an opportuni ty to increase the densi ty' if it was 1 <br />. desired. A survey of parcels in the city of four acres or less in size indicated i <br />japproximately 930 of which about 400 appeared to. qualify for cluster subdivision. <br />!And the amendment, he said, would seem a step in the direction of encouraging <br />.. !compact urban grawth. \, <br />- I \ <br />[Councilwoman Beal while recagnizing the advantage- of having a way to develop 'l <br />difficult parcels af land wandered who. wauld be respansible far upkeep or mainte- i <br />.nance af the open space areas. Mr. Porter answered that there would be provision "}' <br />in the ardinance amendment far legal documents l)lacing respansibility far mainte-j <br />nance. Formatian af associations within the subdivisian would be a desirable <br />method. He fel t there would be no. difference in maintenance an that type af ! <br />[subdivisian than prablems wi th maintenance of individual lots. 'j <br />: i <br />I 1 <br />Councilman Woad felt there wauld be a real potential for neglect of open space <br />iand wandered haw the ci ty cauld enforce compliance considering present difficul ty :' j <br />;with mowing weeds on private properties. Manager said that~. his understanding , <br />~as that the amendment would nat cantemplate a contract between the city and <br />iresidents af a cluster subdivisian concerning a':certain standard of maintenance 1 <br />iaf common ground. Requirements wauld be the same as for other residents of in- I <br />jdividual properties, he said, and it was recognized that there was a real problem 1 <br />throughout the city with regard to external maintenance of properties. Stan Long, <br />Ilassistant city attorney, said it was his experience with townhouse and condominium <br />type awnerships that the graup contral did a better job in keeping properties up. I <br />IFurther discussion centered on this concern in relation to external upkeep in the I <br />~ lentire cit"1f.~wel~ 9:s_ir: th~.~rapos~d cll!s.ter subdivision, with Councilman Williams! <br />_. I wonderinfjJ. whe,~heir..,~heRlanning Cbmm~_?sion wOLzJ-d be interested in recommending in- i <br />jclusian af requirements far hame owners associatian or some ather way of requiring ! <br />!external maintenance of properties. Mr. Parter said there had been discussions : <br />lwith the City Attorney"s office, regarding some type of cavenants to. apply to. <br />L._ ._.. - ..-~. ,. , ". _._ __. ._ _ _. ~. .._..__ _ "... ._ ,...... ._. ......_ ~..J .~ , _ .._ _.._._.__.,___ <br /> <br />,:..... <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br /> <br />8/12/74 - 1 <br />274 <br />