Approved Minutes - 1976-04-22 Housing Task Force
Summary of meeting April 22, 1976
Present: Miller, Gorg, Fara.nce, Gallucci, Talbert, O'Brien, Lewis, O'Connor, V( nn,
Reubendale, Core, Briggs, Woodworth, Burton, Bailey, Chandler
Mike O'Brien reported on planning commission meeting at which Task rgree recoxmuin-
dations were considered. Many groups came up with similar ideas and those thole hts
sho:.l6 be worked out together. We should keep in mind three things as w e ex131ox e
the issues:
. recommendations will need to be documented or justified to be effective
• priotities as a guide to "trade offs" with other groups must be determined
. recommendations should be those ideas which will have an impact on planning
Mike also provided the group with copies of two articles dealing with single fai ily homes.
Herb Miller presented an agenda for the rext 10 weeks which should guide us in di: cussion
and ultimate development gf recommendations. He asked for a volunteer to outl; e
section limes on a large zone map. No one spoke up.
A report on open space and natural resources is to be prepared by Betty Galluec: ,
Marion O'Connor and Ellen Core. The agenda sets May 27 for this.
Herb summarized some of the advantages of pursuing our definition of density in nits
per acre vs. lot size in square feet-- namely flexibility in planning.
Some questions were bought up to clarify the position we had defined the last t o
weeks relating to density. Our use of the term net acrelseemed to be misleading
*(See below)
Hike will bring a slide presentation to the next meeting to illustrate various
designations of density. The flexibility provided by a sliding s cale of units p. r
acre instead of determining building by lot size will need to be regulated by defining
criteria for employing the scale.
Question: How do we rest up the criteria? By zoning, restrictions, through desi n
review, neighborhood attitudes, physical characteristics, e7cisting neighborhood
conditions? Ultimately the criteria selected will determine overall density. : ike
said he would work out a sample for next week applying suggested criteria to a : oten-
tialdeveloprnent area. Herb designed work sheets for us to use in this process.
Carrol Gorg and Dick Bailey reported on 1•:ocile homes. According to a study don
in Eugene of four mobile home parks in that area, the chief adverse reaction to them
was on the basis of aesthetics. There was little impact on schools or neighborh 'od
quality. The report recommended against such homes on single lots, suggested •
density of six mobile homes per acre in parks, requiring permanent foundations .nd
weather protection. This type of housing seemed to provide a good socio-econom c
mix. Good quality mobile housing adheres to the uniform building code but requ .res
good controls for siting and foundations. Cities determine their own criteria nd
restrictions.
Next week: Slide show illustrating patterns of density
reports on Preservation of Lake Oswego's character, Neighborhood Id )ntity,
and Neighborhood Commercial
We may seem to have agreed on our term "net acre", but in my notes I recorde two
different viewpoints expressed as examples of the term. This is the way I h :ard it:
(with Core diagrams)
- We used the term and had examples for net acre (measured as number of acre. available
for development after subtracting approx. 2(J%) ie. 10 acee plot minus 2 acres
leaves 6 acres for development ent at 1-L, etc. x'; I II , • '
- We discussed thx concept of net (development) area ( measured as that part of
an acre left for building after subtracting h 20% ie. allowing 1-14 unit
on 14/5 of each acre to be developed. + !e ' I. en/ C/w �J
•4 Iv.'�4:...,r.. „�.. L IC)y.�.11 1 !Q eiILct