07/21/1982 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

M I NUT E S e Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room, City Hall July 21, 1982 1:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mark Lindberg, Betty Smith, Brian Obie, Emily Schue, Gretchen Miller, John Ball, councilors; Mike Gleason, City Manager; Mar~e Beck, Council- Community Services Director; Bill Sloat, Pat Decker, Planning staff. I. LAUREL HILL PLAN UPDATE Mr. Sloat reviewed the information that had been forwarded to the council. Answering questions from Mr. Obie, Mr. Sloat said there were 750 acres in the plan area. Population projections indicated a maximum of 7,500 dwelling units with 23,000 people in the area. Ms. Decker said most of the area was subject to the South Hills Study. A realistic population projection would be 3,000 4 dwelling units with 6,000 people. Mr. Sloat said the commercial/residential development node was designed to serve the tourists from 1-5 as well as the residents of the laurel Hill area. Real estate brokers had indicated 15 to 20 acres were needed for a well designed, comprehensive commercial development. e Mr. Hamel noted the existing commercial development served tourists. Replying to a question from Mr. Gleason, Mr. Obie said the neighborhood com- mercial development at 40th Avenue and Donald Street was five acres. Mr. Sloat said the Beltline and Barger Avenue commercial development was nine acres. The commercial/residential development node in the laurel Hill area would have 21 acres of commercial development, five acres of medium-density residential development, and two or three acres of professional office development which would serve as a buffer. Responding to comments from Mr. Keller, Mr. Sloat said the commercial/resi- dential development would be north of the existing commercial development. The property owners south of the existing commercial development did not want the commercial/residential node designated for their property. Ms. Miller pointed out the new development would not be visible from 1-5. Mr. Sloat said the property owners did not want commercial development in the laurel Hill Valley. Referring to item 8 on page 3 of the memo dated July 19, 1982, to the Mayor and City Councilors from the Planning Department, Ms. Miller said the policy lost some clarity when it was rewritten. She wondered what property was meant by IIthese lots. II She suggested the policy be rewritten so that it was more clear. The work session was adjourned about 1:25. e B~~ ~ ~ MINUTES--City Council Work Session July 21,1982 Page 1