05/20/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

With regard to arguments that the density limitations were too strict, Mr. Murray said he felt lower density standards were not in keeping with previous discussions about , density st.andards in the entire city. He felt the limit~placed by this study would -:;",: accommodate growth occurring in the South Hills. Too, there were-@~yc other"'areas' c3.f:the city in which residential growth could occur, and filling in thos'e vacant areas would be in line with the city's stated policy. He added that the density 'restrictions were based also on the adequacy of public services in that area. Mr. Murray referred to the city's policy with regard to dispersal of low-cost housing throughout the city and said it would be inappropriate to recommend contrary to that policy, especiallY inyyi~w of the severe shortage of that type of housing. With regard to objections raised on use of PUD requirements at the 700j900-foot elevations; he said PUD's seemed the best tool for satisfying the environmental criteria: of the study, so it would seem clustered housing would have to be used if there was to be open space,preserved.. He said that use of PUD's would not necessarily eliminate single-family development. And they would seem to allow savings over construction of standard subdivisions where design necessitates costly sewer and streetextensionsr He said it was obvious that. homes in the South Hills were more highly valued than those in the rest of the community 'so the argument that PUD's would be changing any existing situation by increasing the market :value of homes was inadequate. Mr. Murray felt that adoption of an exception for developments of four units or less to the acre was ill advised ,would in no way reduce the cost of housing, and would amount to a drastic new city policy contrary to the general plan. He thought it was impossible to put a dollar value on the implementation of this study without going into a very extensive piece-by-piece exploration of property. That would be the next step if the study was <;i,dopte(i, coming back to the C01IDcil , with the property owners taking part and the costs made public. He .felt cost of implementation of the study would stand up equally well as the purchase some time ago of Spencer Butte land. He concluded by saying that the study had very extensive preparation and considerable modification, and he 'hoped the Council would adopt it. , " "I- I , I . - Councilman Hershner referred to the recommendation that all vacanttproperties above the 900-foot level be preserved from intensive level of development subject to exceptions, one ,of them being to allow development under planned unit procedures when certain conditions were met. He asked what kind of development was envisioned other than intensive level of development, and why if those properties were not" developed at all a provision was ~ade to allow some development. Mr. Saul said the word "intensi veil was added after public hearings indicated. a need to provide for single-family dwellings on existing lots. The Committee in providing for that exception didn't want to contradict' provisions providing for preservation of open space, recognizing there were properties at that elevation that because of theirtotai2. invisibility from the city and physical character- istics would allow development and still maintain the overall basic intent of the study. Councilman Hershner said he sensed a philosophy to the effect that development of property above the 900-foot elevation under PUD procedures'would be dependent upon dedication of acreage to the public. He felt the thrust of that recommendation was in the direction of taking property without compensation to the property owner. Mr. Saul agreed that the 'PUD ordinance provided that dedication might be required as"a2condition '~ of PUD approval if it could be clearly shown that the dedication would be of benefit to 'IF residents of the development. However, a density credit is usually given when dedication is required, he said, resulting in the same number of units, so that credit could be considered adequate compensation for the developer. . He added that it was possible to have the required open space remain in the ownership of a particular development, yet still have density credit. In ans\wer to Mr; Hershner"s question about how policies adopted under this study would affect annexation in the South Hills, Mr;-.Saul replied that logging or lack of logging was of primary' concern in' that area. Annexation would hingg on whether properties .were maintained as residential sites (as opposed to land clear"Ocut for timber purposes). Other factors on which annexations' are decided would be the same in the South Hills as in other areas'- availability of public services, contiguity, etc. Councilman Hershner referred to previous abstention from discussion or voting in matters before the Council with regprd to PUD's in the South Hills. He said his law firm was not retained by any client with regard to the South Hills study nor had it eve~ been so he didn't feel he had to abs'tain on this 'issue. He felt i,f he abstained onss{i~' a general issue lt would follow he would have to abstain on issues invoivlng the downtown ar~age~erally, or other general areas of the cities, which would result i~ a never ending abstentlon on general matters before the Council. Councilman Keller asked whether. there was more demand for single-family housing 6r for the cluster type and what size property was adaptpble for a PUD. Planning Director replied that more than 50% of the people in Eugene were renters, and only about one-fourth of the people were in an income bracket that could afford ownership, accounting for the decision to try the PUD concept to allow a variety or1IDits throughout'the city. . Only parcels four acres or larger in size were eligible for planned unit development unless there were physical or other characteristics requiring special attention;' He' added that during January/April this year there were 100 single-family building 'starts compared to 633 mul~iple-family bui~dings. 5/20/74 ~ 6 '~1-, C1.) ~