City of Eugene
7/27/2007 5:03:11 PM
11/2/2006 4:12:25 PM
City Council Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
<br />Council. Chamber <br />Eugene, Oregon <br />May 14, 1973 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Regular rriee'ting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by <br />His Honor Mayor Lester E. Ander::;on at 7;30 p.m. on May 14, 1973 in the Council Chamber with <br />the following councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. Williams, McDonald, Hershner, Mrs. Campbell, <br />Messrs. Murray and Wood.' Councilman Keller was absent. <br /> <br />I - <br /> <br />Public Hearings <br />A. Appeal, Edgewood West III <br />Planning Commission on April 3,1973 gave preliminary approval to Phase I - 60 dwell- <br />ing units on 18 acres, 3.4 units per acre - but declined granting'approval to the en- <br />tire developmept! Applicant felt preliminary approval necessary for th~ entire pro- <br />ject to allow comprehensive planning and provide flexibility, the total project to be <br />developed through 1983 in five phases. There was no disagreement on the proposal <br />itseif which received' strong support from both staff and Commission. Conditions were <br />attached to Phase I approval whiCh were acceptable to the developer. Appeal, based <br />on Section 9.508, was read and the Council is to decide whether the Commission was <br />correct in not granting approval for Phases II through V. Planning st.aff notes' and <br />Commission minutes were previously distributed to Council membe~s. <br /> <br />Richard Unruh, architect, 460 East 2nd Avenue, showed slides or the area and exp~ained <br />how the development would occur. He felt approval of only the first phase ,at this <br />time 'would prevent' proper planning for the development asa whoie and force economic <br />risk on the developer. He ,explained the type of units proposed and traffic access and <br />connections throughout the area~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />David Hoffman, Planning Commission member, referred the Council to Commission minutes <br />of April 3 covering discussion on the project for the Commission's reasoning in giving <br />approval to only Phase I. He said the' Commission was hesitant in approving a develop- <br />ment extending to 1985, even though they felt the proposai was very good. They thought <br />they should 'be cautious as with Qther,developments in the South Hills area. . <br /> <br />Councilman Williams asked what kinds of concerns the Commission had other than density <br />for keeping options open for Phases II through V, and by keeping these options open <br />what hardship it would work on the developer. M~. Hoffman replied that traffic was <br />of concern as well as density, and the Commission is still working on an ordinance <br />regarding' :hillslde development sta~dards. Also the South Hills study is still in <br />progress and the Commission would like to knbwthe outcome of that before giving ap~ <br />proval to a,lO-year development. Mr. Unruh said that without approval ?- large parcel <br />of land would be committed fora long period of time without ~being able to plan. He <br />felt a hardship would also be worked on the City in not being able to make specific plans <br />for streets, sewers, etc. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Councilman Williams asked whether. preliminary approval on the entire project would <br />prevent future reconsideration should Councilor Commission find transportation <br />systems, sewers, or other facilities were going to be different than approval indi- <br />cated. Manager replied that from a legal standpoint it was not known, but it is pre- <br />sumed that should major changes in conditions occur both the City and developer would <br />want 'to renegotiate preliminary approval. Planning Director felt the City would have <br />an obligation to live within the conditions of preliminary approval. Staff originally <br />suggested review of densities at some future time, but even with that the applicant <br />was, concerned with' long-term commitment on number of units with which he can work. <br />Another staff concern is'outcome of the current South Hills study. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Campbell asked if the Commission was concerned about fire protection in <br />that area, whether existing response time with no assurance of change in present <br />service was a major consideration. Mr. Hoffman didn't recall that as a major concern <br />when preliminary approval to Phase I was given. Long-range density and projecting <br />planning ten years into the future were the main concerns. <br /> <br />.\ <br /> <br />In answer to questions from Councilman McDonald, type of units were described as well <br />as type of contractual arrangement for development before final approval and start of <br />construction. Mr. Unruh didn't feel the developer should be held to the density study <br />since the proposed density for this project is well below the interim density of six <br />units per acre. Preliminary approval would'allow flexibility in overall planning <br />which is again subject to review before final approval. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Beal received confrrmation from Mr. Hoffman of her understanding of the <br />Commission's viewpoint - that the Commission has no criticism of the concept of <br />aesthetic qualities of the project, rather an attempt to keep the City's planning <br />options in the Couth Hills area open on a long-range basis. She recognized the de- <br />veloper's concern in attempting an overall plan for a large area to make the develop- <br />ment economically feasible. <br /> <br />l41 , <br /> <br />5/14/73 - 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.