|
<br />~2
<br />
<br />Eugene, Oregon
<br />Council Chamber
<br />January 13, 1969
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Regular me.eting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His Honor
<br />MaybrLest~r.E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on January 13, 1968 in the Council Chamber with the following
<br />Councilmen present.: Mrs. Ha~ard, D~_. _Xu:~AY _ and Messr~. ~i~~a:d and Teague, My~. Beal J~n2--:.!'Jessrs.
<br />Gribskov and Mohr. Cc;rnncilman M~~6;rr,;nr:::~_~~~~~'aut:'-2:.-~ "-_~~,{.i"~t:~><i;;"~~.:2~r~:!;e~~ ~~,_.~ ~__ .
<br />
<br />1 The City Recorder administered the oath of office to Councilman-elect Mohr.
<br />
<br />2L Appeal, Conditional Use Permit, 7th and Lawrence - Mayor Anderson read a letter from Mr. Robert
<br />Bennett appealing a conditional use permit apprpved by- the Planning Commission for a Rehabilitation
<br />Center at 7th and Lawrence.
<br />
<br />Mr. Edward A. Butier, attorney for Mr. Bennett, said that insufficient notice had been given his
<br />client to prepare for the Planning Commission meeting'. He stated that they did not object to the use,
<br />but felt it should not be located on this site, in that it was not consistent with a commercial
<br />distr~ct. Mr. Butler said that if the conditional use is permitted Mr. Bennett ~a~ asked' that it
<br />be subject to annual review. Mr. Bennett felt the permit should be temporary because. of traffic
<br />and parking problems. Mr. Butler presented a petition signed by residents in the area opposing
<br />establishment of' this center.
<br />
<br />Mr. M. B. Fear stated that he owns an apartment occupied by elderly women, and that they do not
<br />favor this use in close proximity.to th~ir home. He present~da 1is~ of ~partments and motels
<br />in the vicinity and explained. that the center would tend to downgrade this residential area.
<br />
<br />L
<br />
<br />Mr. Robert Moulton stated that he represented two property owners" one of whom resides out of the
<br />state, and the other deceased, whose estate he. represents. Mr. Moulton stated that.bis clients had
<br />not received notification in time to present a case to the Planning Commission, and that he had
<br />just this afternoon been able to arrange to see the file in.th~ .P1~~ningO~fic~. Mr. Mo~lton
<br />cited the Zoning Ordinance, stating that in his opinion the request as stated was improper, in
<br />that group care homes, as defined in the Ordinance, included only those persons eighteen and
<br />under. Also, the application had been improperly handled by the Planning Office.
<br />
<br />Mr. Ed Fadeley, a member of the Lane County Council on alcoholism, explained the' use they plan for
<br />the facility, and the arguments presented at the Planning Commission meeting. He explained that
<br />legal notification was given, and that no new arguments had been presented at this meeting. The
<br />question of notification had been sa-tisfied at the Planning Commission meeting.
<br />
<br />Mr. Fadeley and Mr. Gordon Coleman outlined arrangements made for adequate parking by a lease
<br />arrangement with a neighborIng service station. Mr. Coleman indicated that the 7th and Lawrence
<br />site was under option and that they would probably lose it if they could present no positive
<br />guarantee that they could use it as planned. They also had staff under contract, waiting to
<br />start work.
<br />
<br />The City Council questioned'Mr. Fadeley and Mr.
<br />of stalls required by the Planning Commission.
<br />requirements would be complied with.
<br />
<br />Coleman about parking arrangements and the number
<br />They were assured that Building Department
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />Mr. Mohr stated that, in his opinion, the Council should be considering the appeal, not the
<br />matter of insufficient parking spaces and proper~notification. Mrs. Hayward agreed, but was
<br />not sure that denial of due process had been established. The City Attorney stated that deter-
<br />mination should be made in what particular field due process had not been granted to interested
<br />parties. Since Mr. Bennett had been at'the Planning Commission meeting and had presented his
<br />case at that time, he could not say he had not been granted due process.
<br />
<br />Mr. Moulton pointed out that his client, who lives out .of state, had not been granted. due
<br />process, that notification had not been received in time for him to prepare a case, and that he
<br />had not been heard at the Planning Commission meeting.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Hayward moved, seconded by Mr. Wingard, that this matter be referred back to the
<br />Planning Commission to allow Mr. Moulton's clients the opportunity to be heard.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Be.tty Niyen, president of the Planning Commission, stated that there was really no provision
<br />under the Ordinance for referring this. matter back to the Planning Commission, and that, to
<br />reverse the Planning Commission oecisions, cert'ain questions must. be answered and conditions
<br />met. Regarding notification, the Planning Commission had not only complied with the law, but
<br />had done much in excess of that required. Mrs. Niven pointed out that if notification were
<br />given far in advance of a hearing, application would have to be made several months in advance
<br />to allow sufficient time for clerical work.
<br />
<br />A rollcall vote was taken on the motion as stated. Mr. Mohr and Mr. Wingard voted aye and
<br />Mrs. Hayward, Dr. Purdy, Mr. Teague, Mrs. Bea1 and Mr. Gribskov voted no. The motion was
<br />defeated.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />Mrs. Hayward, seconded by Mrs. Bea1, then moved to grant a Conditional Use Permit for Lane
<br />County Council on,A1coholism for a Rehabilitation Center at 7th' and Lawrence Streets.
<br />
<br />Mr. Wingard, seconded by Dr. Purdy, moved to amend the motion to provide that. this permit
<br />be subject to annual review. for a period not to exceed two years.
<br />
<br />1/13/69 - 1
<br />
<br />,-,
<br />
<br />~
<br />
|