12/11/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tion of storm sewer along the drainage di tch, (d) construction of sidewalk on Norkenzie and Minda wi th standa:r;d dri veway approaches, and (e) provision of two fire hydrants as required by the Eugene Fire Department. The Commission in its ,consideration also felt study of the site planning would be desirable. I . !James Pearson, president of the Planning Commission, said the Commission in .\ approving the concept of the proposed development, was concerned abou t the density, but was reluctant to arbitrarily force a lesser density for this or ,any bther planned unit development because ,there is no criteria in the PUD ordinance for adjusting densities. He said the staff is now in the process of , I updating the ordinance and hopefully the revised version will include density criteria. Councilman Mohr commented that apparently there is not the flexibility in the planned development standards with regard to density except when the Council imposes it, such as in the south hills area. Planned developments seem always to be accomplished at the maximum number of units, and the neighborhood in this instance objects to increasing the densities in the entire area. He suggested there should be flexibility in density regulations as well as in siting or other ;requirements that could be put into effect. Manager said the City Attorney feels 'the Commission does not have the authority to limit density to a lesser figure than set out in the ordinance. The Commission does have the authority to deny !approval of a planned development on the basis of being too dense which would I ~~ave the option to developers to come back wi th a plan wi th less densi ty. ,iiayor Anderson arri ved at the meeting. Councilman Williams said then it would not seem to be appropriate for the Council i . to indicate a development is too dense and to say what they would consider' a reasonable density, but could deny a project because it is too dense and let the developer decide himself what would be an appropriate number of units to bring back for approval. Planning Director concurred. Mr. Bonnett wondered if this would be a policy change, saying in previous planned I .developments density decreases have been suggested and approval postponed until .the applicant and staff have be~n able to arrive at a suitable plan. Manager said there can be an informal understanding if a developer is willing to accept ]informa1 direction and change his plan to a lesser density, but apparently the ~ Commission does not have the right to say it will approve if number of uni ts is niduced to so many per acre. Planning Director, in response to Mr. Pearson's r~ference to reduction in density for a previous PUD approval, noted that that .feduction was offered by the applicant, the Northland developer has made no offer to reduce the density. ~' . . ' .- . - Beal, Assistant Planning Director pointed out In answer to questions from Mrs. location of houses on properties adjacent to the project site and dwelling unit ,locations and parking areas on the si te plan. He said discussion has been held with the developer with regard to access to interior areas adjacent to the site i ,but that access has not yet been worked out. Also, that the adjacent properties I . , ,." are in several ownerships and would probably have to be consolidated were they '. to be developed in multiple housing. ;\1 Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Bradshaw to sustain the appeal and overrule I the Planning Commission's preliminary approval of the Northland PUD on the : basis that the site is not appropriate for the density being pxojected by the , developer. i There was discussion with regard to consideration of this item at the Council i meeting of December 11 wi th consensus that it would appear on the consent calendar . I and that the Planning',Commission' s recommendation would be available for considera-: : tion at that time also. i Mr. Pearson referred to the density scale imposed by the 1990 Plan and said he feels the Commission's action in approving the proposed project was totally , consistent with the 1990 Plan both as to density and as to concentration of : development within the urban service boundary.. Planning Director said so far ,as the PUD ordinance is. concerned, if the Commission or Council feel the plan I for pxoposed development as submitted because of the number of units would create ,pxoblems, it would be appropriate to review and get a substitute plan with the . same density but with a different configuration which may resolve the situation. ~James Redden, architect, said his client acquired the land for development based . on 8 units per acre and that it would not be realistic to ask them to come back with a lesser density. He said proposals for use of the property under normal subdivision and alternate schemes still using the 8 units per acre have been prepared with the idea of explaining the alternatives to residents in the neigh- ; borhood and better acquaint them .with problems of the development. He said those plans would also be available to the Council. I ~ .. _. . - . -,~ ~SS - 2 12/11/7?