|
<br />I
<br />
<br />M I NUT E S
<br />EUGENE CITY COUNCIL
<br />August 12, 1974
<br />
<br />./
<br />
<br />411I Regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon was ~alled to order by
<br />The Honorable Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on August 12, 197~, ln the Councl1
<br />Chamber with the following Council members present: Tom Williams, James. Hershner (left
<br />early), H. C. McDonald, Wickes Bea1, Beth Campbell, Robert Wood. Councl1 members absent
<br />were Gus Keller and Neil Murray.
<br />
<br />r
<br />
<br />(0005) Ma:yoy.An.c:terson recognized the presence of members of Boy Scout Troop 79 working ,on ~
<br />their Civic Merit badge.
<br />
<br />I - Proclamation -;Canvassing votes cast in August 6, 1974 election to exceed the 6%
<br />limitation by $2,666,746 for 1974-75 budget was read showing passage of the measure
<br />by a vote of 5,493 "Yes" - 3,517 "No".
<br />
<br />Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to accept. the proclamation-:,
<br />Motion carried unanimously.
<br />
<br />(0048) II - Public Hearings , Jf _. .
<br />A. I coa'e'~AinEinament re: Cluster Subdivisions - Recommended by the P1ann~ng Comm~s- ,
<br />1'5ion June 24, 1974. Copies of official report were previously distribu~~d to '1
<br />~ Council members setting out recommended amendments that would re~ax requ~rements!
<br />in RA and R-1 districts on lot area, lot coverage, and yard requ~rements to per-!
<br />lmit cluster type subdivisions of four acres or less in total gross ar~a. The I
<br />,amendments would provide for site review designation, covenants ensur~ng use of j
<br />,semi-private open space by all occupants of such a subdivision, and maximum, f
<br />, densi ty of four u~i ts to _t~e .acr~.. ,. _. ., "..... . ~ ,
<br />
<br />John Porter, p1anni'ng director, said the proposal would provide.' lor ai;i-v,~~opmen:r--
<br />!of many odd-shape properties four acres or less in size which, could not be'. de-
<br />'i veloped in a conventional manner and which would not qualify' for development
<br />under PUD procedures. Site review procedures would provide an opportunity for
<br />'adjacent property owners to express concerns, although site review approval would .;
<br />not require public hearings and lengthy process_ing which applied in developing .\
<br />under PUD procedures. Mr. Porter said there was sqme concern among the Planning' I
<br />Commissioners tha t a maximum densi ty of four un-i ts to the acre was too low. How- !
<br />ever, planning staff felt that a review after a year or so to determine workabilit~
<br />of the provisions would provide an opportuni ty to increase the densi ty' if it was 1
<br />. desired. A survey of parcels in the city of four acres or less in size indicated i
<br />japproximately 930 of which about 400 appeared to. qualify for cluster subdivision.
<br />!And the amendment, he said, would seem a step in the direction of encouraging
<br />.. !compact urban grawth. \,
<br />- I \
<br />[Councilwoman Beal while recagnizing the advantage- of having a way to develop 'l
<br />difficult parcels af land wandered who. wauld be respansible far upkeep or mainte- i
<br />.nance af the open space areas. Mr. Porter answered that there would be provision "}'
<br />in the ardinance amendment far legal documents l)lacing respansibility far mainte-j
<br />nance. Formatian af associations within the subdivisian would be a desirable
<br />method. He fel t there would be no. difference in maintenance an that type af !
<br />[subdivisian than prablems wi th maintenance of individual lots. 'j
<br />: i
<br />I 1
<br />Councilman Woad felt there wauld be a real potential for neglect of open space
<br />iand wandered haw the ci ty cauld enforce compliance considering present difficul ty :' j
<br />;with mowing weeds on private properties. Manager said that~. his understanding ,
<br />~as that the amendment would nat cantemplate a contract between the city and
<br />iresidents af a cluster subdivisian concerning a':certain standard of maintenance 1
<br />iaf common ground. Requirements wauld be the same as for other residents of in- I
<br />jdividual properties, he said, and it was recognized that there was a real problem 1
<br />throughout the city with regard to external maintenance of properties. Stan Long,
<br />Ilassistant city attorney, said it was his experience with townhouse and condominium
<br />type awnerships that the graup contral did a better job in keeping properties up. I
<br />IFurther discussion centered on this concern in relation to external upkeep in the I
<br />~ lentire cit"1f.~wel~ 9:s_ir: th~.~rapos~d cll!s.ter subdivision, with Councilman Williams!
<br />_. I wonderinfjJ. whe,~heir..,~heRlanning Cbmm~_?sion wOLzJ-d be interested in recommending in- i
<br />jclusian af requirements far hame owners associatian or some ather way of requiring !
<br />!external maintenance of properties. Mr. Parter said there had been discussions :
<br />lwith the City Attorney"s office, regarding some type of cavenants to. apply to.
<br />L._ ._.. - ..-~. ,. , ". _._ __. ._ _ _. ~. .._..__ _ "... ._ ,...... ._. ......_ ~..J .~ , _ .._ _.._._.__.,___
<br />
<br />,:.....
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />
<br />8/12/74 - 1
<br />274
<br />
|