05/14/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council. Chamber Eugene, Oregon May 14, 1973 . Regular rriee'ting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor Mayor Lester E. Ander::;on at 7;30 p.m. on May 14, 1973 in the Council Chamber with the following councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, Messrs. Murray and Wood.' Councilman Keller was absent. I - Public Hearings A. Appeal, Edgewood West III Planning Commission on April 3,1973 gave preliminary approval to Phase I - 60 dwell- ing units on 18 acres, 3.4 units per acre - but declined granting'approval to the en- tire developmept! Applicant felt preliminary approval necessary for th~ entire pro- ject to allow comprehensive planning and provide flexibility, the total project to be developed through 1983 in five phases. There was no disagreement on the proposal itseif which received' strong support from both staff and Commission. Conditions were attached to Phase I approval whiCh were acceptable to the developer. Appeal, based on Section 9.508, was read and the Council is to decide whether the Commission was correct in not granting approval for Phases II through V. Planning st.aff notes' and Commission minutes were previously distributed to Council membe~s. Richard Unruh, architect, 460 East 2nd Avenue, showed slides or the area and exp~ained how the development would occur. He felt approval of only the first phase ,at this time 'would prevent' proper planning for the development asa whoie and force economic risk on the developer. He ,explained the type of units proposed and traffic access and connections throughout the area~ e David Hoffman, Planning Commission member, referred the Council to Commission minutes of April 3 covering discussion on the project for the Commission's reasoning in giving approval to only Phase I. He said the' Commission was hesitant in approving a develop- ment extending to 1985, even though they felt the proposai was very good. They thought they should 'be cautious as with Qther,developments in the South Hills area. . Councilman Williams asked what kinds of concerns the Commission had other than density for keeping options open for Phases II through V, and by keeping these options open what hardship it would work on the developer. M~. Hoffman replied that traffic was of concern as well as density, and the Commission is still working on an ordinance regarding' :hillslde development sta~dards. Also the South Hills study is still in progress and the Commission would like to knbwthe outcome of that before giving ap~ proval to a,lO-year development. Mr. Unruh said that without approval ?- large parcel of land would be committed fora long period of time without ~being able to plan. He felt a hardship would also be worked on the City in not being able to make specific plans for streets, sewers, etc. e Councilman Williams asked whether. preliminary approval on the entire project would prevent future reconsideration should Councilor Commission find transportation systems, sewers, or other facilities were going to be different than approval indi- cated. Manager replied that from a legal standpoint it was not known, but it is pre- sumed that should major changes in conditions occur both the City and developer would want 'to renegotiate preliminary approval. Planning Director felt the City would have an obligation to live within the conditions of preliminary approval. Staff originally suggested review of densities at some future time, but even with that the applicant was, concerned with' long-term commitment on number of units with which he can work. Another staff concern is'outcome of the current South Hills study. Councilwoman Campbell asked if the Commission was concerned about fire protection in that area, whether existing response time with no assurance of change in present service was a major consideration. Mr. Hoffman didn't recall that as a major concern when preliminary approval to Phase I was given. Long-range density and projecting planning ten years into the future were the main concerns. .\ In answer to questions from Councilman McDonald, type of units were described as well as type of contractual arrangement for development before final approval and start of construction. Mr. Unruh didn't feel the developer should be held to the density study since the proposed density for this project is well below the interim density of six units per acre. Preliminary approval would'allow flexibility in overall planning which is again subject to review before final approval. Councilwoman Beal received confrrmation from Mr. Hoffman of her understanding of the Commission's viewpoint - that the Commission has no criticism of the concept of aesthetic qualities of the project, rather an attempt to keep the City's planning options in the Couth Hills area open on a long-range basis. She recognized the de- veloper's concern in attempting an overall plan for a large area to make the develop- ment economically feasible. l41 , 5/14/73 - 1