|
<br /> r
<br /> ()40l' e
<br /> ; 'u.1
<br /> 12/8/69
<br /> development or stop Mr. Weaver, but felt they should have identity as a neighborhood, and a voice in I
<br /> planning that neighborhood.
<br /> Mr. AU Tussing, 2437 Riverview, spoke about the relationship between City Hall and the Citizen. He_
<br /> felt the ctty CouncH: should help and advise citizens, and should not ignore the wishes of the people.
<br /> He explained that it was at the Planning Commission President's advice that they formed a citizens
<br /> committee. He said Mrs. Niven did not advise them that they could file an appeal within ten days, and
<br /> II they felt there must still be some recourse to the Council.
<br /> Mr. George McGuinness, 1790 Riverview, sppke on "Planning Considerations." He did not feel reasonable
<br /> i consideration had been given to the valley with regard to the impact of a 92 unit apartment project,
<br /> I and the increased density. He urged that planning consideration be applied to a Laurel Hill dev-
<br /> i elopmental plan, beneficial to the neighborhood.
<br /> ! Mr. Durchanek read a summary which made three specific proposals: 1) postponement of all construction,
<br /> :,
<br /> II includ:ing the proposed PUD, excepting single family residential units, until such time residents of
<br /> I Laurel Hill and the Planning Commission or other appropriate body are able to develop a comprehensive
<br /> II plan for growth of the neighborhood; 2) Council establish a committee to which it will appoint City e
<br /> II Planning representatives, and to which Laurel Hill will appoint its representatives. This committee
<br /> ! should be formed with the express intent to develop a comprehensive growth plan for Laurel Hill
<br /> ) neighborhood. They asked for equal representation and an equal voice in developing such a plan.
<br /> They also requested involvement of appropriate Lane County offices, since 250 acres on the outer
<br /> I edges of the area are considered to be part of the neighborhood, by virtue of their topography;
<br /> 3) Request the City Council to utilize its prerogative under ORS 227.090 to direct the Planning Com- I
<br /> mission to reconsider the preliminary approval granted for the proposed PUD.
<br /> The Planning Director explained the process for granting prelimina~y approval of a PUD, and written
<br /> notice, posting and advertising preceding public hearing for this approval.,
<br /> II The City Attorney addressed himself to recommendations of the committee, the first recommendation
<br /> I being that the City ,Council postpone issuance of'building permits for construction. As long as
<br /> property within a zoning 'classification meets requirements of that zoning classification, the Council
<br /> I has no authority to withhold building permits. The only legal basis for withholding permit would be
<br /> noncompliance with zoning requirements.
<br /> Regarding the Council telling the Planning Commission to revoke prior action, this presents other
<br /> legal problems. ,All procedural requirements have been satisfied in this case. When requirements
<br /> of the ordinance are met, certain rights and privileges accrue therefrom. In regard to a moratorium,
<br /> this is a matter for the Planning Commission to determine whether proper or improper. Council could
<br /> suggest or give direction to the Planning Commission in this regard~ In answer to Councilwoman
<br /> I, Hayward, the Attorney said apartments could be prohibited in that zone, except where Mr. Weaver
<br /> already has a pe~mit. In answer to Mrs. Beal the Attorney said t~e Council could initiate a change
<br /> in zoning classifica~ions. They must go to the Planning Commission for a public hearing, and have
<br /> the zoning classification changed in accordance with State law and the City Zoning Ordinance.
<br /> Mayor Anderson said there may ~ave been occasions of misunderstanding or differences of opinion, but
<br /> I the Council is interested in the Laurel Hill situation. They do not treat the area as an island,
<br /> but consider it part of the City, and the General Plan for the area will be part of a plan for the I
<br /> ,I city of 'Eugene, as well as the entire metropolitan area.
<br /> II Mrs. Betty Niven, President of the Planning Commission, said if the Planning Commission had failed
<br /> to inform the citizens of Laurel Hill of their right of appeal, she apologized. She had never known
<br /> it to happen that someone did not comment on this at, a public hearing. She commented that it was
<br /> interesting that citizens had referred to the Planning Commission's great interest in the developer.
<br /> The Planning Commission is constantly hearing from developers that the Planning Commission has no
<br /> interest in what they want to do,:only in trying to preserve the City exactly as it is. Mrs. Niven
<br /> I explained problems of housing in the City, and impossibility for middle income people to obtain loans '.
<br /> to buy homes. Therefore, they must be housed eithe~ in apartments or in substandard homes. These
<br /> apartments must be built in neighborhoods like Laurel Hill, and others like them, who also feel their
<br /> I area is unique.
<br /> I
<br /> In answer to Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Niven said it was not clear if the Planning Commission would be
<br /> i able to stop all development in the area until a general pian is provided. 'She said transportation
<br /> I is one of the most difficult problems to resolve in planning for an area.
<br /> I
<br /> II Councilman Mohr asked the City Attorney how the Planning Commission, to which the Council has dele-
<br /> II gated no authority in terms of law making, couldhave created a condition from which there seemed
<br /> no escape. The City Attorney explained that the Council, in 'adopting the Zoning Ordinance, set
<br /> !1 forth in Article 28 procedures for Planned Unit Development, and delineated to the Planning
<br /> I Commission administrative function of hearing, giving notice and making decisions. The Planning
<br /> 1
<br /> I Commission decision was an administrative decision under criteria of the Ordinance.
<br /> I Councilman Mohr discussed the possibility that the Council choose a course as proposed by the People I
<br /> I of Laurel Hill, and whether the City Attorney would be in a defensible position. Mr. Mohr did not
<br /> I
<br /> I feel the Council could take an opinion about what it could do and just rest there.
<br /> I, Mr. Williams felt that, since people were not advised of their right of appeal, there should be some
<br /> Ii way the matter could be brought before the Council at a later time.
<br /> 11 Mrs. Niven suggested to the Council that the best oourse might be to ask Mr. Weaver to withdraw his
<br /> I
<br /> request. She felt this was one way to accomplish what ,~he Laurel Hill citizens asked without asking e
<br /> the Council to break rules.
<br /> ~J 12/8/69 - 3 /---1
<br />
|