07/15/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ David Hoffman, 1626 Sherwood Place, Planning Commission member, stated that this decision was not an easy one to make. The decision to approve was based on how it would serve' all the residents of Eugene. The Planning Commission at no time considered it as two p~eces ~ of property but rather as a total unified project, which would therefore meet'fhe' dert:Sity ,... requirements. They also based their decision on the fact that additional parking can be provided if the need develops. Improvements and lighting would discourage undesirable uses, he added. Annabel Kitzhaber, 1892 West 34th Avenue, said the LWV supports the project as there is a need for that type of housing in the south Eugene area. Manager pointed out that when the hearing was rescheduled, all parties who could be reached were telephoned and letters ~ere put in the mail the same day. Manager stated he did want it understood that the City would not be in a position to provide greater police patrol in the future because manpower and funds do not appear on the horizon at this point. I Mr. Hoffman, in..answering a question by Mr. Williams, stated that the Planning Commission considered the property as an integral site. In the past, they have used church property and the transfer of density using the entire property for the calculation of residential units. Mr. Williams asked if the fact that the property might later separate would place some requirements on the remaining church property, that all of its density would have been used up. Mr. Hoffman answered that there would be a contract that would be signed by both parties, city and the developer, which would prohibit further development without coming to the Planning Commission for a change in the PUD. 4It Mr. Williams then asked if it is correct to assume that in any RA or Rl zone that, if a housing development were to go into the maximum or near the maximum extent of the total property that, it would be entirely proper to move that housing development to half of the property and put a school on the other half. Mr. Hoffman answered that he was not sure about schools or other uses but that they have in the past done this with churches. Planning Director said that one of the purposes of the PUD situation is to allow for shared use of services and facilities. Transfer density is allowed. It is not considered on a parcel by parcel basis but for the entire development scheme. It would be possible to dedicate the land for school and get that credit transferred into housing. If the church was not on that site at the present time the property would not be penalized. John W. Robertson, 635 E. 39th, said that even though the total acreage is 3.51, 24 units will be going on 1.65 acres and would have to be considered as exceeding the maximum density requirements. ~ Marshall Webster, 3850 Ferry, maintained that the code is definitely being stretched. James Robertson, 30 West 35th, said that the question is what two pieces of property are actually sharing when combined. There are 24 units on half of it and the church on the other half and, when considering the church may expand in the future, it would mean that they would need to expand their parking lot, eliminating trees, etc. There is no shared commitment between the two in that the elderly people will not be using the church site and he did not see how it can be judged as one piece of property. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Williams mov~d ~econded by Mr. Hershner that the,Courici.,L}deny~ the appeal and uphold the actIon of the Planning Commission in approving the PUD and that it execute at least three findings of fact and ask that the City Attorney be prepared to direct further findings as appropriate. The findings would be as follows: That, for purposes of control under the PUD ordinance, find that the one-owner requirement is satisfied that, under the provisions of the code, the density transfer requirement is adequately satisfied, that the deviations of parking are totally insignificant as far as elderly housing is concerned. Mr. Murray stated he favored the motion, that it was well within the law and that it met a well defined public need. Mr. Wood agreed and favored providing much needed 4IIJ elderly housing. A question was raised on the matter of ownership and whether the code is being violated. Manager gave assurance that the Planning Commission is in constant contact with the legal department and nothing would be recommended that was..not legal. Vote was taken on the motion as stated which carried unanimously. 7/15/74 - 3 2.55