|
<br /> "'IIIl
<br /> e 42$
<br /> II II
<br /> J l\ Council Chamber
<br /> II Eugene, Oregon :1
<br /> I! I'
<br /> December 28, 1970 ,I
<br /> .1 "
<br /> 1 "
<br /> " \:
<br /> " Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His
<br /> 'I
<br /> 'I "
<br /> '1 Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7 :30p. m. 6n December 28, 1970, ,in the Council Chamber, with the
<br /> II
<br /> " following Councilmen present: Mr. Teague;_ Mrs. Hayward and Mrs. Beal; Messrs. Gribskov, Mohr and
<br /> "
<br /> II
<br /> !l Williams.
<br /> ~ ' ,
<br /> :: "
<br /> I' I. Planning Commission Report of December 1, 1970 ,!
<br /> \ A. Recommended Denial R-2 to RG; Lane Propertjes, Inc. - 36, 62, 90 North Lawrence Street and
<br /> 425 Clark Street
<br /> 'i
<br /> ,
<br /> ,
<br /> *Planning Director explained that this request had been made several times previously. I'
<br /> The area is surrounded by R-2 and therefore, the Commission felt approval of this I
<br /> ,I
<br /> request could be considered to be 'spot zoning.
<br /> e Mr. James Britton, speaking for the appellant, said the project would be designed
<br /> in order that some units would be available for subsidized housing. He explained
<br /> that, under the ordinance, houses could be built with more bedrooms under R-2 ;
<br /> than RG and he felt the request was valid.
<br /> Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward ,that the.request be denied. "
<br /> I ;,
<br /> "
<br /> " "
<br /> il Mr. James Britton, speaking for the petitioners, asked to update the description to include :i
<br /> "
<br /> II another lot on the corner of Clark and Lawrence. He explained that the owner was not
<br /> Ii proud of this property and would like to develop it, removing existing structures and
<br /> , making something worthwhile. He said the refusal of the Planning Commission to rezone
<br /> "
<br /> i, the property dates back to 1965, and that until this time, no mention had been made of
<br /> I spot zoning. They had been requested at that time to wait until studies had been
<br /> ,
<br /> " completed. He stated that, in the 1966 Central Lane Planning Council study, this entire ':
<br /> !i ,
<br /> area had been shown as garden apartment. Mr. Britton said sewers needed to be replaced "
<br /> I,
<br /> 'i in the area, and that this request would have no bearing on them.
<br /> " ,
<br /> " I,
<br /> " "
<br /> :1 ,
<br /> He said he owned proper~y ,
<br /> Mr. Max Ansola, ~633 Fox Hollow, spoke in favor of the request. ; ~
<br /> "
<br /> I in the area which was in the same condition as that of the petitioners. He felt the
<br /> 'I
<br /> " whole section should be RG and he could not understand how it could be spot zoning.
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> :' I
<br /> :i ,I
<br /> 'I There was discussion concerning the condition of the neighborhood, and what steps could
<br /> I
<br /> :' be taken for improvement.
<br /> "
<br /> [,
<br /> il In answer to Mr. Mohr, Planning Director Porter said it would be best if the developers
<br /> "
<br /> II waited until a land use plan for the area had been completed. A request for a neighbor- :i
<br /> r: hood development project will be submitted which will set forth detailed planning for
<br /> "
<br /> i! the neighborhood. :i
<br /> 'i
<br /> 'I ,
<br /> I, "
<br /> I: Councilman Mohr felt it was important to encourage private development, and that
<br /> I it private enterprise should not have to wait for the city to decide what it was going
<br /> I
<br /> ~ I to do.
<br /> "
<br /> :, I:
<br /> I
<br /> I The Pilianning Director pointed out that, besides improvement of housing, street and sewer
<br /> "
<br /> :1
<br /> " improvements were needed.
<br /> :1
<br /> 't Vote taken on motion as stated. Motion carried with Mr. Mohr voting no.
<br /> "
<br /> :,
<br /> ,I
<br /> I:
<br /> e jl B. Recommended approval of zone changes:
<br /> "
<br /> ii
<br /> l. RA to R-2, Land Associates, Inc. - west of 1-5, east of Garden Way, south of
<br /> " Harlow Road, Planned Unit Development
<br /> I ~ 2. R-l to RP, Citizen's funk, northeast corner Hilyard and 30th, PUD
<br /> I'
<br /> ,I
<br /> I!
<br /> " There was no action taken on these requests at the committee meeting. Request
<br /> I:
<br /> ;1 number one was to allow low density multiple family housing to be developed
<br /> :! under the FHA 236 program. Development under PUD was recommended, with a
<br /> I: maximum density of fourteen units per acre. Final approval should be withheld pend-
<br /> i;
<br /> "
<br /> ,I ing approval of Planned Unit Development.
<br /> I,
<br /> I'
<br /> ,I I'
<br /> ,
<br /> ,. No one at this meeting spoke either for or against this item.
<br /> p
<br /> it Request No. 2 was to allow construction of a banking facility. The Planning
<br /> " Commission recommended approval, subject to development under Planned Unit
<br /> -~I \1
<br /> Ii Development procedures and regulations, and requested that final reading be
<br /> II withheld until final approval of the Planned Unit Development. i
<br /> ii
<br /> ,
<br /> I
<br /> !i Mr. Norman Oswala, 2940 Alder, spoke in opposition to this request, and asked for
<br /> " clarification of some points. He felt the location of this bank would be detrimental ,\
<br /> I' to tmffic, and asked if studies had been made. He asked what this rezoning would
<br /> If mean to neighboring residences, and said there are quite expensive houses with :'
<br /> "
<br /> ,I their backs to this area. He felt this would open the door to other businesses on
<br /> Ii
<br /> 'I Hilyard.
<br /> e "
<br /> I
<br /> *Portions printed in Italics are from the Committee meeting of December 23, 1970.
<br /> ,
<br /> ,
<br /> 12/28/70 - 1 .....
<br />
|