01/26/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

would allow a significant change in the subdivision in which he lived, one de- veloped as a restricted area with the only vacant lots being those considered "corner" lots. He didn't think, once rules for development of an area were established, that one should be forced to go through the courts to maintain ~ deed restrictions. -- Rolland Beglau, 2907 Wingate Street, called attention to a memo he had previous- ly addressed to the Council opposing the proposed amendments. He said the change would affect properties adjacent to quite a number of existing homes and that ad~erse effect should be taken into consideration. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Mr. Che~kin said it was true that the Commission considered enforcement of deed restrictions a civil matter and does not want to become involved. He pointed out that under one interpretation of the code as it is now written - requiring intersecting streets regardless of street names to define corner lots - the 30 lots affected by the change would now be eligible for duplex construction. Or the code as now written could be interpreted to define corner lots as those having two frontage lines abutting streets of different names. He cautioned that there would have to be decision anyway to determine whether duplexes could be constructed on the affected lots. In response to questions from Councilman Keller with regard to lots in Mr. Jordan's neighborhood, Mr. Chenkin explaind that if the present code is interpreted to mean a corner lot is one at the intersection of two streets forming an angle of 1350 or less regardless of whether there are two separate streets - that it just turns a :corner - then a duplex would be allowed on that lot. And if it is con- sidered 'a corner lot under that interpretation and there is only one lot between that and another corner, duplex lot, then the interior lot would also be eligible 4It for duplex construction. Councilman Murray asked what the original logic was in allowing duplexes on corner lots. Also, how would this amendment revise that original purpose. Mr. Chenkin answered that originally it was thought that permitting duplex con- struction on corner lots would compensate for dual assessments levied against properties abutting two streets. Of late, he said, it was also considered a help in promoting compact urban growth and in allowing different housing types throughout the city. He said he thought the amendment was in keeping with the original intent of permitting duplexes on corner lots. Councilman Hamel commented that the requirement for two intersecting streets in defining a corner lot for duplex construction had been in effect for many years, but this was the first time a developer had wanted to call a cul-de-sac an intersecting street. He noted that in the South Eugene area and other parts of the city where cul-de-sacs had been developed in subdivisions, duplexes had not been constructed, and he felt objections presented at this time were legitimate. Councilwoman Shirey asked the Planning Commission's reasoning in deleting from its recommendation the staff proposal to require interior lots lying between two corner lots to contain 10,000 square feet before they could be used for duplex construction. Mr. Chenkin said that changing the requirement from the present 6,000 square feet did not appeal to the Planning Commission, primarily because the Commission felt "cuplex occupants could not be equated with occupants of single-family detached homes" so far as impact on an area. He said that e usually families living in duplexes were not as large, did not have children attendi~g schools, and generally did not present the same demand on public services. He added that keeping the 6,OOO-square-foot requirement really would 1/26/76 - 6 ,.32