Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> ""'l <br /> -- ~~ 0 <br /> I Council Chamber <br /> Eugene, Oregon <br /> August 9, 1971 I <br /> Ij Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His I <br /> Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on August 9, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the <br /> I, following Councilmen present: Messrs. Teague, McDonald and Gribskov; Mrs. Beal and Mrs: Camp- ,I <br /> II <br /> II bell; Mr. Williams. Mr. Mohr and Mr. Hershner were absent. <br /> I( <br /> II I. PUBLIC HEARINGS <br /> ,I <br /> I, A. Appeal from Conditional Use Permit, Day Care Center, 934 Washington (Postponed from <br /> II <br /> i 7/26/71) <br /> I A public hearing was held July 26, 1971 on an appeal from Carl Lemke to use of a home <br /> I at 934 Washington as a day care center, and was postponed so that Council could view <br /> the property. A tour of the area was taken and Council is ready to take' action. <br /> e II 1 <br /> ii Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Planning Commission recommendation II <br /> II <br /> be upheld. Motion carried. <br /> II <br /> !! B. Appeal from Conditional Use Permit, Bmise,Cascade II <br /> II II <br /> II Thirteen families in the <br /> 'I The site for this proposal is located on Brewer Lane. <br /> I I, area have objected to the development and have filed an appeal. Their appeal states II <br /> ,I that they feel the Planning Commission did not satisfactorily evaluate or consider II <br /> " I <br /> II the concerns and objections of the residents of the area, or follow the recommenda- <br /> I <br /> I tions of staff. They dismissed the problem of over-burdening scpools in the area <br /> , and did not consider the effects of increased traffic flow through this residential <br /> , <br /> I <br /> i area. They did not evaluate the possible change in character of both the specific <br /> I <br /> :1 neighborhood and the area that could come about through this proposed addition to <br /> il existing and proposed low income housing. Because of this, they felt the Planning <br /> I, Commission had not satisfactorily discharged its responsibilities, and appealed <br /> 'I <br /> II the decision to the City Council. <br /> II <br /> II Mr. Ed O'Reilly, representing some of the petitioners involved in the appeal, said <br /> II <br /> II residents of the area had appeared at the Planning Commission public hearing and voiced <br /> Ii opposition, but the Planning Commission had approved the petition. Subsequent to <br /> I' <br /> II this, they filed an appeal. Mr. O'Reilly said some matters had not been properly <br /> I <br /> 1 considered and there were violations of some prior mandates of the Council. Mr. <br /> i <br /> I O'Reilly felt it was not proper to increase the density to 11 units per acre. <br /> , <br /> , The Planning Commission did not give proper consideration to traffic problems and <br /> " <br /> !' <br /> rl to the fact that the only exit and access was by way of Brewer Avenue. Schools are <br /> not adequate and will become overcrowded. Mr. O'Reilly did not feel the Planning <br /> I, <br /> II Commission had full information on these matters and that the code was therefore viol- <br /> I ated with reference to planning. He referred to the Willakenzie plan and said that <br /> If <br /> I' it sets forth criteria for single family residences in this area. Putting 79 <br /> II units onto a ten acre tract was in direct conflict with this plan. He referred to <br /> I II <br /> 11 a similar proposal recently before the Planning Commission for R-2 zoning in this <br /> area which was denied by the Planning Commission. He felt this was a similar pro- , <br /> II posal with the same traffic and school problems, and that it should also be denied. II <br /> i' :/ <br /> ,I <br /> Ii Mr. George Marx, 1565 McLean Boulevard, spoke in favor of the project. He ,said it <br /> had been underway for thirteen months and was designed to fit a community need. This II <br /> :1 'I <br /> type of project generates community feeling because it is a little different. Sev- II <br /> il eral sites had been analyzed before this was chosen. There is a need for such il <br /> e ;1 projects, and the public must accept them. School and traffic problems can be ironed <br /> Ii II <br /> I' out, and there will be such problems with any site. If this site is rejected, the " <br /> [I il <br /> 1\ project will have to be built in the core area, and this may create a ghetto, while <br /> I, <br /> 'I here it would have a chance to be something good. ~ I <br /> It II <br /> Ii Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, commented on the property which Mr. O'Reilly II <br /> II <br /> I' had said was similar to this project. She pointed out that phat petitioner had II <br /> :1 <br /> 'I requested straight R-2 which would have allowed no control. This proposal, under :1 <br /> Ii Planned Unit Development, gives the Planning Commission an opportunity to specify <br /> Ii I, <br /> II how it will be built, and to have control over the project, and work out problems. Ii <br /> II II <br /> " She explained the Planned Unit Development with conditional use permit and how it !I <br /> " <br /> :j applied:>lto controlled income and rent housing, and that it would allow up to 14 units <br /> I, q <br /> II per acre in this location. She explained the problems with keeping schools filled II <br /> jj in some of the older areas, and that it was felt children could be bussed to other' II <br /> schools. These must be used to capacity to protect the people's invesfment. She I! <br /> Ii 'I <br /> I discussed the traffic problems, and said these would have to be resolved:-before the 1i <br /> :1 <br /> I development could be built. II <br /> I, <br /> " <br /> j ~ Jim Freeman with Boise Cascade, explained FHA requirements and that the number of ;1 <br /> I' <br /> il units to be constructed would be in acoordance with these requirements. ii <br /> !: <br /> II Mr. Wendell Rogers, 1630 Curtis Avenue, asked how many units would be allowed on il <br /> I ~ this property under the ordinance. City Manager explained the Planned Unit Develop- II <br /> if ment requirements and that under conditional use additional density is allowed up il <br /> Ii I <br /> e to 75% of the density allowed in the next higher zone. Mr. Roge rs felt citizens , <br /> " i <br /> 'I I <br /> I: - I <br /> i <br /> 8/9/71 - 1 , <br /> , <br /> 'I <br /> " <br /> ... <br />