|
<br />e
<br />
<br />""11II
<br />
<br />So,6
<br />
<br /> f
<br />I II
<br />II
<br />Ii
<br />il
<br /> :i
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> II
<br /> ':
<br /> ,I
<br /> "
<br /> :1
<br /> p
<br /> 'I
<br /> II
<br /> L
<br /> \1
<br /> ii
<br /> il
<br /> II
<br /> il
<br /> :1
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />Coun<;:il-Chamber
<br />Eugene, Oregon
<br />March 8., 1971
<br />
<br />Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor
<br />Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7T:,30 p.m. on March 8, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the following
<br />Councilmen present: Messrs. Teague:~ Mohr, McDonald, Gribskov, Williams and Hershner; Mrs. Campbell.
<br />Mrs. Beal was absent.
<br />
<br />I. Appointments - Mayor Anderson announced appointment to the Plumbing Board of Malcolm Manl5'!Y,
<br />R. K. Livingston, Warner Dallas, Robert Fegles, and Joel Goss, and to the Traffic Safety
<br />Commission of Carl DiPaolo, Albert Peake and Merle Graham.
<br />
<br />Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. Mohr that the Council confirm appointments as announced by
<br />the Mayor and as listed above. Motion carried.
<br />
<br />II. Public Hearing Appeal from Planning Commission Decision, PACT Action for Development Project.
<br />Members of the City~Cillncil have complete minutes of all Planning Commission action pertaining
<br />to this item. Agplication was first made on October 5, 1970, but was withdrawn on October 19,
<br />1970. The application was reinstated on October 29 and scheduled for public hearing December 1,
<br />1970. At this hearing, the Commission postponed action until the question of inclusion of churches
<br />in a planned unit development was clarified. The Commission onece again postponed action at its
<br />January 5, 1971 hearing, because the recently-adopted ordinance clarifj~ng the question of
<br />church inclusion would not become effective until the middle of January. At its February 2,
<br />1971 meeting, the Commission granted preliminary approval to the Planned Unit Development.
<br />On February 11, 1971 David No. Gordon, F. W. Bnunner and W. Green filed appeals from the
<br />Planning Commission preliminary app~oval to the development. A supplemental appeal was sub-
<br />mitted in connection with the three appeals on March 1, 1971 in which nine points were set
<br />forth by the opponents on which their appeal was based. March 8, 1971 was set by the City
<br />Council as the date for public hearing on the appeal. The City Attorney has outlined in writing
<br />and furnished each Council member, the nine points of appeal and the action appropriate for the
<br />Council, which would be to accept the Planning Commission recommendation and deny the appeal, or
<br />accept the appeal and deny the application; or for the Council to modify the recommendation of
<br />the Planning Commission and approve the development with such modifications.
<br />
<br />Mr. Otto F. Vonderheit, attorney for the Appellants, said the fi~st issue was the matter of
<br />density, if it is assumed that the application itself was proper. The City Council considered
<br />this problem at its February 8 meeting when it determined that a change in density for low
<br />cost housing under conditional use permit should be reviewed. Mr.. Vonderheit felt the same
<br />issue was present in connection with this application.
<br />
<br />Mr. Vonderheit outlined the manner in which the application had been submitted and maintained
<br />that the application had not been properly made under the Planned Unit Development ordinance.
<br />He explained the manner in which density could be determined and that Section 18.07(e) of the
<br />zoning ordinance had not been followed, in that the density of the application exceeded ten
<br />percent over the parent zone on the 3.28 acres. The area of church property, which contains
<br />one acre, could not be used under the provisions of the ,ordinance for semi-public or public
<br />property for inclusion in the calculations. Therefore, only 26 units could be allowed, rather
<br />than the 32 requested by the 9pplicant. The only way the reqiliirements of the PUD could be
<br />met would by by a joint application which covered the full four acres. PACT has no authority
<br />to apply for the acre for church use, and no option has been filed, and the curch one acre
<br />should not be considered as part of the application or part of the acreage for computing density.
<br />
<br />Mr. Vonderheit further stated, that there has been no evidence submitted in connection with
<br />the traffic requirement criteria, except by members of the community who have pointed out the
<br />hazards of traffic and the confusion which would be caused there by more traffic into the
<br />dead-end street and the vast amount of traffic on the road. There is no evidence that the
<br />Traffic Department of the City has made a study of this problem.
<br />
<br />The general conclusion of the Planning Commission was in error in finding this development
<br />wou~d r~sJJlt _in a stable environment for living for people now in the neighborhood. 271-'
<br />p-ersoD~ ~~g2=~g"~he'pe~iti2~ o~P'?sing thecomplex, and there are now more who are opposed to this
<br />type of constructlon as part" of theIr neighborhood. There is no evidence to support that the
<br />church is really a part of the application except a letter to the architect requesting this
<br />consideration. There is no evidence the church is planning to build or has financing to build.
<br />
<br />Mr. Vonderheit felt the people living in the neighborhood who had invested in property and built
<br />there, should be considereq, rather than the needs of people who had probably not even been in
<br />this area six months ago. The people in the neighborhood are very concerned with devaluation
<br />of their property and have employed an expert appraiser who will testify that their properties
<br />would be devaluated.
<br />
<br />People in the neighborhood group have found other property which would be available for this
<br />project, and have offered to purchase the site from the Willamette Presbytery so that they
<br />would not be injured financially. They desire to help establish the project, but certainly
<br />do not want it in their area. Certainly, social goals would not be advanced by totally
<br />isolating low income families in an environment of higher income families.
<br />
<br />Mr. George Hemphill, Jr., 1750 West 24th, said he is chairman of the Westmor~land Citizens
<br />Committee which was organized for the sole purpose of attempting to prevent the development
<br />of a low rent PUD in the neighborhood. He outlined the possibilities which exist as to
<br />
<br />3/8/71 - 1
<br />
<br />.....
<br />
|