Laserfiche WebLink
<br />*- <br /> <br />M I NUT E S <br />EUGENE CITY COUNCIL <br />April 8, 1974 <br /> <br />0450 <br /> <br />Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by <br />His Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on April 8, 1974 in the Council Chamber with <br />the following councilmembers present: Mr. Williams, Mr. Hershner, Mrs. Beal, Mrs. Campbell, <br />Mr. Keller (left early), Mr. Murray, and Mr. Wood. Coucilman McDonald was absent. <br /> <br />I - Appeal, Planning Commission October 2, 1973 denial of rezoning from RA to R-2-3.9-PD <br />on property between 1-105 and Kins Row, Centennial Boulevard (Earl GFeen) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Rezoning between I-5 and Kins Row, Centennial Boulevard (Earl Green) - Copies <br />of Ci ty Attorney's memo recounting the history of th€~ request to rezone this <br />property were previously distributed to Council membe'rs. The Council voted in <br />February to rezone the property but at that time, because of negative recommenda- <br />tion from the Planning Commission, findings supporting the rezoning and the <br />ordinance effecting the change were not prepared. The issue was postponed to a <br />subsequent meeting at which time different representation of the Council declined <br />to accomplish the rezoning and there were no findings adopted supporting the <br />negative vote. City Attorney advised that preparation of findings supporting <br />both views would be appropriate for consideration at the next Council meeting, <br />at which time the appropriate findings could be adopted in line with the majority <br />decision at that time. Manager said there seemed to be no legal risk in de- <br />veloping findings on a controversy supporting both sides of the issue; it would <br />be a matter of judgment on which findings state the stronger case. City Attorney <br />also pointed out that in order to strengthen the record it would be appropriate <br />for those Council members who were absent from some of the meetings at which the <br />issue was discussed to so state and to indicate they had studied the record of <br />the meetings missed. If the record of meetings missed had not been studied, <br />then the Council member should abstain from participating in the decision. City <br />Attorney added that to correct the action previously taken, under th~ Fasano <br />ruling, findings supporting the decision must be adopted and in the record. <br />Manager suggested any anticipated absences from the April 8 Council meeting <br />should be noted and then a decision made on whether to take the issue to that <br />meeting or postpone it. There was no indication of any anticipated absence <br />from that meeting. <br /> <br />rill' <br /> <br />Councilman McDonald wondered whether precedent was set in reversing the action <br />of the Council at the February 25 meeting. He said it was a regular meeting <br />with a quorum present and he understood the action taken at that time should <br />stand. Manager explained that rezoning approved at the February 25 meeting was <br />not accomplished because the ordinance and findings supporting the change (re- <br />quired by the Fasano ruling) were not prepared. At the following meeting a dif- <br />ferent Council majority was present and voted not to ,proceed with the change <br />but findings supporting that position were not prepared, so disposal of the <br />issue at that meeting would not have been legal. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Campbell asked if there was precedent in having a rollcall prior <br />to a meeting on rezoning and whether there would always be a prior rollcall in <br />the future. Manager agreed a problem existed, particularly when the vote was <br />fairly evenly divided on an issue. One council member absent would necessitate <br />staff having to be prepared to respond in either direction. He said a prior <br />rollcall would not be a matter of course in the futur,e. <br /> <br />Comm <br />3/27/74 <br />Affirm <br /> <br />It was understood findings would be prepared both affirma ti ve and <br />negative positions on the rezoning for distribution to the Council before con- <br />,sideration at the April 8 meeting. <br /> <br />~ r. ' .-... . <br />Findings, Earl Green Rezoning (between.'Kiils Rowand I-10S, Centennial Boulevard) _ <br />I Copies of findings supporting the rezoning of this p,roperty to C-2-]. 9-PD were <br />,distributed to Council members. Also distributed were excerpts from Planning <br />I Commission minutes of October 2, 1973 supporting the Commission's recommended <br />: denial of the rezoning. It was understood the issue would be on the April 8,1974 <br />! Council agenda. <br />~---;- .,-.... -'--' -'~_'__'_"~-._"":_-_._~.~_,___.,..______"....._... ..._._ .._.'_ ,.__........ ..__.,~..__.._-:-<.__..........._._..::::.._. .~--.. .-;. .;..._4.'.... ....-.... "0 '":"'.- .u -'"7.:'-"'"7, '. .,-c~:-.._._..:-;-------' <br /> <br />Co rom <br />4/3/74 <br />Affirm <br /> <br />~ .. <br /> <br />At the request of Councilman Keller this item was taken out of order (Item II-J and K on <br />Council agenda). He had indicated when inquiry was made in committee about attendance at <br />this meeting for action on this appeal that he would be present. However, he was unable <br />to stay for the entire meeting. <br /> <br />Copies of letter received from Richard Cleveland, attorney representing Earl ?reen, w~re <br />distributed to Council members. Mr. Cleveland requested postponement of the Hem unt1.l the <br />entire Council was present (McDonald absent). Manager reviewed action on this request and <br />the conflicting actions taken at different meetings of the Counci,l, depending upon which <br />Council members were present. 2 <br />~i 4/8/74 - 1 <br />