|
<br />-
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />(0853)
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />(1050 )
<br />
<br />r.
<br />
<br />L
<br />
<br />BobWazeka, 2728 Baker Boulevard , urged' 'adoption,- say:ihg if would 'permit orderly.
<br />growth in-'cthe South'Hills area with somelirriitati6ns~ 'would give st'a.biiity'while
<br />providing: a range of 'USes, 'made' adequ'ate' provisibnfor' preservation of natural
<br />environment, and provided clo's'e-in recreation areas. 'He ' felt that . although t.her~
<br />would be some cost involved in acquiring properties 'for park purposes, it might
<br />in the long run be less expensive 'than having to provide public' services should'
<br />that area be allowed to develop. He also felt that preservation of the South
<br />Hills from'development',would not result. in 'pressure to 'develop prim'e agriCUltural
<br />land.. " ." . '. . . .'. ,', :. - " , ' ' . .
<br />
<br />Jean 'Smi th; South 'Eugene' s 'Residenf~~League, 5290' Saratoga Street:; Edna Shir~y,
<br />32.1.7 WhittenDrive;chalrman of Crest Drive Citizens' Association; and Pain'Strimlirig,
<br />3820 Monroe Street, spoke in favor of the study recommendations 'and urged adoption
<br />without further changes, saying the revised report .answered concerns of citizens
<br />in the South Hills area.
<br />
<br />George McGuinness, 2680 Floral Hill Drive, member of:Laurelhl11 Citi~ens Association,
<br />urged acceptance of the' study as presented. He felt'it a significant s~udy not only
<br />because it was the first' large scale specific planwithih the General Plan but also
<br />because of the involvementof:so m'any'people, both for and :aga:inst'theresulting
<br />recommendations. . . .
<br />
<br />Charles Dallas, president of the Spencer Butte Improvement Association, also Urged
<br />adoption of the recommendations. He ndted that most of the arguments in favor of
<br />development above, the~OO-foot level had a financial base or were slanted toward'
<br />the possible taking' of property rights. 'He 'felt his property rights would be . '
<br />violated if :the rest.rictions were not adopted thereby 'allowing developm:ent 'and a'
<br />change in the pre'sent environment of that area.
<br />
<br />, .
<br />Dan Chil~ess,;1845 Universi.ty. Street; member of the Local' AffairsCoIllJt1ittee of ,.
<br />SW Oregon Chapter of AIA~' called' attention to a letter from that c6mmittee which
<br />supported the goals of maintaining and enhancing the environment of the South
<br />Hills. Howev~r ,he felt the study was lacking in s'ome areas -' costs of extending'
<br />services in other areas were not included, street widths and design criteria
<br />should be r~-evaluated, ecolpgical and management program were not:very well produced.
<br />He thought there were portions in which things were implied which should nave beEm
<br />more firmly expres::;ed. ,He'urgedamendment to 'provide for continued study and re':'
<br />finement of the 'reportand consideration of'its relationship 'to other areas within
<br />theci-ty.
<br />
<br />Nils ~ult, 2400 South Louis Lane, recognized as commendable the purposes 'of the .'
<br />study but wondered whether the public could afford in dollars the'preser'lation of
<br />that type of land (South Hills) in comparison to the need for housing. Or the
<br />restriction of housmg'in the hills 'and resulting development of agricultural areas.
<br />He thought the South. Hills would lend itself very well to good' planned housing', and
<br />suggested that if it was decided to set aside portions for scenic value 'alone the
<br />economic. impact should be carefully-weighed. ,Also; if it was set aside, the people
<br />of ' Eugene should have an opportunity to say whether they were willing'to pay for
<br />it.' He felt there should be consideration of'the difficulties faced by land owners
<br />'who had invested in tho?e properties.
<br />
<br />Bill Briot" r.epresenting Eugene/Springfield Home Builders. ASsociation, '308 East 50th Ave
<br />Avenue, read a prepared statement calling for a balance between human needs-and
<br />legitimate environmental concerns. He cited the rising cost of housing caused
<br />in part by more restrictions on use of land, and he made suggestions for amendments
<br />and deletions in the 'study. Copies of the' statement were distributed to Council
<br />members. ,Mr.' Briot urged careful consideration of.the suggested change's prioy,.to
<br />final action on the study, recommending development iri the 'hills area to. avoid
<br />urban sprawl and to provide'housing.within economic range of all the'people.
<br />, '
<br />
<br />Norman Savage, 1942 Kimberly Drive, expressed concern about the PUDrequirement 'for
<br />development' above the 700-foot level. He thought low-density;. single-family develop-
<br />ment was preferable to'apartments and townhouses and suggested that low-density'
<br />housing be excluded from planned unit development requirements. '
<br />
<br />Bill Slattery, 1551, Oak Str.eet,. also was concerned:about high-density development.
<br />He felt it would, have an immediate economic impact on landowners because of the open'
<br />space requirement in ~UD procedures in addition to tendency for 'shorttermtenantsand"
<br />increased traffic.
<br />
<br />Quincy ,Powers ,1924 -Kimberly Drive, fel't expense connected with, PUD procedures
<br />would eliminate medium-priced single-family land owners and, force devel'opment in
<br />large multiple-family units t00cover the added costs' and ,that. reservation of'open
<br />space to meet PUD requirements would decrease the tax base thereby increasing the
<br />tax burden over the balance of tJ:1e,'entire city. He felt the recommendations lacked
<br />
<br /><9, -'".'5'
<br />
<br />5/20/74 - 3
<br />
|