04/28/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Councilwoman Shirey didn't think a golf course where fees were charged for its use and limited to a certain number of people could necessarily constitute a good defini- tion of open space for a PUD. She recognized the merit of preserving that golf course as open space but was concerned about use of this type open space in determin- ing development density. Assistant Manager acknowledged that the course was con- sidered initially as a part of the development's open space, but he knew of no other development where a similar situation was intended. Mr. Saul added that in terms of open space definition there were many places that were not readily available to public use that were preserved as an essential component of a development. He men- tioned the problem slopes covered with poison oak and blackberries in the south hills as one example. (1468) Councilman Haws liked the proposed development but said he was "hung up" on the open space definition. He couldn't see where space could be called open when it was re- strictied to those who played golf or paid the fees. Mr. Saul said that open space was not defined in the zoning ordinance. However, it was defined in the General Plan as a break in the urban development pattern - a broad river, a tree-flanked stream, a field, anything of that nature that would add a measure of quality to the environment. He called attention to the definition of open space in Oregon laws - a classification of property which would allow reduced tax assessment - and listed a number of uses of such property named therein, one of which was a golf course. Ms. Heath said all the people living along Law Lane felt the density of that area should be maintained in the Oakway Phase II development. Also, that the break in urban development would not be visible if the project was constructed as planned at this time. They did not question that the amount of space within the development itself was adequate, she said, only that it would not be noticeable from outside. e Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to deny the appeal and that findings set ou in planning commission staff notes and minutes of March 4, 1975 be adopted by reference thereto. Mr. Murray said he appreciated fully the difference in the character of the neighbor- hood and the development, but he thought this project was compatible with and com- plimentary to the concept of the adopted community goal of compact urban growth and was a plan that would accommodate the surrounding area. He thought the open space provided satisfied the existing criteria and he was impressed with the changes made in the plan to accommodate concerns expressed. Councilman Haws agreed in part but felt the citizens in the area were being cheated because what was defined as open space was really not open space, and there was no criteria for defining open 'space. He said the golf course waS'TIot open space and that he would vote against the motion. Councilman Murray thought it shortsighted to try to determine in the overall com- munity what was and what was not open space. He noted the number of areas where open space definition was really a physical description, not the use to which it was put, and cited the south hills areas as a dramatic example. Councilwoman Beal had no trouble looking upon the golf course as open space. She thought open space could be defined as any undeveloped space which could be enjoyed by looking at it even thought access to it was not available. -e Mayor Anderson noted that one feature considered in approving purchase of the Laurel- wood Golf Course property was that it would provide more open space for the community still one has to pay fees there also. He said Oakway was not a private club, anyone could pay golf there. Counci lman Haws density for the thought inclusion of the golf course as open space in calculating development was really subverting the density by calling the land 4/28/75 - 7 2\2