10/23/1967 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

49P~ e 10/23/67 I Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Anderson to approve Item 9 of the Committee report. Motion carried. 1 10. Administrative Intern - Thomas Thinevau1t was introduced. He is' now working on a part-time basis in the City Manager's office as administrative intern. e Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Anderson that Item 10 of the Committee report be received and filed. Motion carried. 2 11. Planning Commission Report - September 25, 1967 a. Community Goals - The Planning Commission recommended implementation of those portion s of the report from the Community Goals Committee on which emphasis was designated: (1) Request Central Lane Planning Council to consider creation of a Scenic Conservation Committee at the metropolitan level. (2) Create an Architectural Review Board. (3) Obtain information from the University concerning its policies and 'p1ans which have a bearing on the City's long-range physical development plans. e (4) Continue investigation of payment in lieu of taxes to the City for fire and police protection and to the school district for University-owned property occupied by married students. (5) Ask the Lane Coupty Assessor to publish and distribute a list of basic improvements which can be made on a structure without affecting its taxable value. I Some concern was expressed about creation of the Architectural Review Board and possible conflict with renewal projects. It was explained action on the recom- mendation is to indicate the Council's thinking, and actual ~reation of a Board would be by resolution with specific function s of the Board set out. I,t was also explained, with regard to Items 3 and 5, that the University Campus Development Committee and the City Planning Commission are exchanging representation at their, meetings, and that the Lane County Assessor has been contacted with regard to structural improvements as they wu1d affect taxable value. With regard to Item 4, the Manager said agreements have been made with the University on police protection and fire marshal service, but not on fire suppression. Mr. Lassen moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to adopt the Planning Commission report. Motion carried." Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Anderson that Item 11 of the Committee report be approved. Mo t io n carried. Other items on October 19, 1967 committee agenda not considered at that time: 3 1. Planning Commission Report - October 10, 1967 a. Rezone to R-3G area on south side of Dove Lane between Taney and Highway 99N, Peterson b. Rezone to R-3G area on north side of Dove Lane between Taney and Empire Park I Drive, Peterson The Planning Commission recommended denial of both petitions. The Planning Di- rector said the Commission's denial was based primarily on its concern with not being able to provide services for the increased density the requested rezoning would create. Two petitions signed by residents of the area were presented opposing the rezoning. Carl Peterson said he did not have concrete development plans but that he felt the rezoning would not decrease values in the area. Councilman Lassen asked if the Planning Commission had given any consideration to a lesser density, and the Planning Director said the Commission would look e favorably upon a lesser density to buffer adjacent commercial property. Nick Schnell, 3841 Souza Drive. said he felt schools in the area could not absorb the density the rezoning would allow, and asked several questions with regard to the type of building planned and whether adequate sewer service is available. Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr.Anderson to deny the rezoning on both the north and south side of Dove Lane. Councilman McDonald asked for a separation of the two requests. Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Anderson to deny rezoning on the south side of Dove Lane. Motion carried, Councilmen McDonald and Wingard voting no. Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Anderson to deny rezoning on the north side of Dove Lane. Motion carried. 4 c. Rezone to R-3G west side of Knob Hill between 38th and 39th, Marlow - The Planning I Commission recommended denial. Thomas Marlow, 4050 Hilyard Street, asked that the Council consider rezoning the property to permit multiple-family housing other than apartments, which would allow construction of a duplex on the interior lot. He said the site is not suitable for a single-family residence. Dr. Purdy moved seconded by Mr. Anderson to refer the item back to the Planning Commission for con- sideration of rezoning to permit a duplex on the interior lot. e Richard Hayward, 230 East 38th, speaking for 15 property owners on East 38th and 39th, objected to re- zoning which would allow apartments. A vote was taken on the motion to refer back to the Planning Commission, and motion carried. ....LJ )1 10/23/67 - 10