|
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />~1
<br />
<br />3/8/71
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />e
<br />
<br />~
<br />~
<br />,I
<br />~
<br />,!
<br />:i
<br />:i
<br />ti
<br />:1
<br />,I
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr reminded those present that the Council purpose was to find on what grounds .to make
<br />a decision on the appeal. He explained the duty of the Council to question the appellants
<br />very carefully and determine what was the best policy for the City.
<br />
<br />The City Attorney indicated that Mr. Vonderheit had submitted his sppplemental appeal in some
<br />detail, and that, in compliance with the ordinance, he had submitted to the Council what the
<br />specifications are, and the Council will have to make findings on each and everyone. The
<br />City Attorney advised the members of the Council that, on the last page of his memorandum,to
<br />them, he has set out possible findings.
<br />
<br />Mr. Vonderhit asked that he be provided with a copy of the City Attorney's answer to his
<br />supplemental appeal. The City Attorney stated that this .was not an aBswer, but an outline for
<br />the .Council on matters to decide at this public hearing. He would make a copy available to the
<br />appelants.
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr tried to iilldentify the errors which the Council could consider. The City Attorney
<br />pointed out that there are eight findings which the Council can affirm or deny, and the Council
<br />decisions have to be made on these matters.
<br />
<br />II
<br />,I
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. David Hoffman, Planning Commission member, said he had been present when all testimony
<br />had been taken at all public hearings in connection with the request. Mr. Vonderheit had stated
<br />at all'public hearings that the application was not in order. . The Planning Commission
<br />questioned staff and were assured that the application was in order. Regarding the discussion
<br />whether or not the church land could be considered in calculating density, the Planning
<br />Commission delayed the hearings because they wanted clarification by the City Council in this
<br />regard. The reference to public and semi-public buildings in the zoning ordinance amendment
<br />was intended to include churches. This has been affirmed by the legal staff, and this was the
<br />Planning Commission interpretation of the City Council decision. Thqt acre of church ground
<br />was taken into consideration in calculating density. This is not shown in the minutes as a
<br />definite calculation, but it is a common practice with the Planning Commission, and they are
<br />well aware of the number of units allowed per acre for development of a PUD on RA land. The
<br />density was certainly in the minds of the Planning Commission members and clearly represented
<br />this was within the allowable density of an RA PUD development. It was certainly recorded in
<br />the minutes that the location, design, size and use of the development is consistent'with the
<br />General Plan and meets the criteria established by the zoning ordinance. The Planning
<br />Commission vote was unanimous that the development could be integrated with the surroundings
<br />and that a large open space would be maintained. There would be no traffic problem, as far
<br />as the development was concerned. The development would comply with the intent of the ordinance.
<br />
<br />Mr. Pierre Van Rysselberghe said the points delineated by Mr. Vonderheit are based upon density,
<br />but he is actually talking about a defective application. Mr. Van Rysselberghe has supplied the
<br />Council with copies of the Planning Department file, including the application and documents
<br />appended to the application.
<br />
<br />In answer to Mr. Mohr, Mr. Van Rysselberghe said'Mr. Vonderheit had access to the file. He
<br />outlined documents which were included'and said there should be no question in the record when
<br />Mr. Mayer signed a letter of intent and it was submitted, that he represented PAD and St. Marks
<br />Church. The original options, which had been extended to PAD were dated October 1, 1969.
<br />
<br />Mr. Van Rysselberghe said Mr. Hoffman's comments had been pertinent to density, and that the
<br />Planning Commission had made its computation on 4.28 acres.
<br />
<br />In answer to the appellants Article 5, Mr. Van Rysselberghe said the Planning Commission minutes
<br />point out criteria established by the zoning ordinance regarding density requirements of
<br />Article 18. Regarding integration with surrounding area, the manner in which this will be
<br />integrate~ is formally established by plans, descriptions and presentations made before the'
<br />Planning Commission. Regarding traffic, Pages 25 and 26 of the Planning Commission minutes of
<br />December 1, 1970 describe that the development can be adequately served by the present street
<br />system, and that public services can adequately be extended to serve the development. Mr.
<br />Van Rysselberghe pointed out that the record is complete.
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />Mrs. Sally Smith, manager of PAD, said the appeal challenging the Planning Commission decision
<br />to allow PAD to build 32 units at 25th and Chambers centers on two points - first, the question
<br />of validity of the application to use this land, which Mr. Van Rysselberghe has answered, and
<br />2nd, whether the housing'development and church are compatible with the neighborhood and can
<br />be integrated, and whether it will be a stable healthful environment for people living in the
<br />neighborhood. The variety of homes, uses and ages nearby make it a good neighborhood. Public
<br />facilities are available nearby to make it an ideal location for families of low and moderate
<br />income. Mrs. Smith showed slides illustrating the variety of housing and other uses in the
<br />neighborhood.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hugh Penniston, chairman of the fuard of Directors of PAD, said it is their intention to
<br />respond to human need. Housing is a human need. This is a well-planned project, which will
<br />be compatible with the housing already in the area. FHA has phrased it as one of their best-
<br />planned proposals.
<br />
<br />Dick Ives, chairman of Eugene Homebuilders Association, said they fully endorse this project,
<br />and 'feel this could serve as a lesson in living together.
<br />
<br />Veola Wilmot,-2160 Fairmount, spoke for Churchwomen United of Eugene, and said they approve the
<br />I
<br />
<br />3-8-71 - 3
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|