|
<br /> "11II
<br /> e Jga
<br /> 11/30/70
<br /> ;
<br /> " "
<br /> ':\
<br /> I "
<br /> "
<br /> "
<br /> , AmendTll~nt t~"z6ning Oraip~nce, Article 18, Section 18.06 - Add new. use to permitted buildings
<br /> ,; V.
<br /> I,
<br /> I and uses in Planned Unit Development.
<br /> ,.
<br /> ii Council Bill No. 9304 - Amend zoning ordinance Art. 18, Sec. 18.06 Permitted buildings
<br /> and uses - add new number (f), areas of public and semi-public use, was submitted and read
<br /> i: in full.
<br /> "
<br /> Mr. McDonald moved seconded by Mr. Teague the the bill be read the second time by council bill
<br /> number only, with unanimous consent of the Council.
<br /> Mrs. Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, explained that this amendment did not represent
<br /> a change in the way the Planning Commission had been operating in interpreting the Planned
<br /> Unit Development ordinance, but that, in connection with an item before the Commission last
<br /> spring, the Assistant City Attorney had indicated that the ordinance was not clear unless
<br /> the entire ordinance was read. He suggested an amendment to remove ambiguity. She pointed
<br /> e out that this amendment had nothing to do specifically with low income housing.
<br /> Mr. Otto Vonderheit, attorney, said he had been retained by a group of people living in the
<br /> "
<br /> I area of 25th and Chambers, the location of an application for low rent housing which will
<br /> be bBfore the Planning Commission December 1. He felt this amendment was definitely tied
<br /> to the low cost housing request. He protested that the Planning Commission had not heard
<br /> this amendment when it was originally before them, and that they had not been properly
<br /> I notified when it would be heard. He asked that the Council at least hold over action on the
<br /> bill so that the public could be ~are and have an opportunity to present additional
<br /> information.
<br /> Mr. David Gordon, 1895 West 25th, said the proposal was misleading, and that, rather than
<br /> resolving ambiguities, it may create more, and that the ordinance is adequate the way it
<br /> is. He requested that the emergency clause be removed, if the Council wished to pass the
<br /> ordinance.
<br /> Mr. George Hemphill, Jr., 1750 West 24th, asked what would be accomplished by the amendment.
<br /> j, He felt the scope would be entirely too broad. He felt too much land was being developed
<br /> into parking.
<br /> Mrs. Niven explained the Planned Unit Development and its requirements, and that there were
<br /> no outright uses in PUD. It was all subject to review. The amendment was proposed to get
<br /> the ordinance into clearer form.
<br /> Mr. Pierre Van Rysselberghe, 877 Willamette, said it had been suggested there was a conspir-
<br /> acy to make special legislation, but he felt this was not the case. He 'Said this applica-
<br /> tion had been filed before this amendment was proposed, and as far as it was concerned the
<br /> ordinance was adequate. He also outlined notification, and that it had been sufficient.
<br /> The City Manager explained the addition of the emergency clause on an ordinance to Council-
<br /> man Mohr, and that routine ordinances do not actually take effect until thirty days after
<br /> I passage by the Council and signing by the Mayor.
<br /> The City Attorney read the section pertaining to the emergency clause to the Council, and
<br /> explained that they should weigh the facts to determine if an emergency was in fact present.
<br /> I Councilwoman Hayward agreed that it would be a mistake to make a decision on the need for
<br /> , this amendment on the basis of feeling concerning the project proposed for 25th and Chambers.
<br /> This project will come before the Council for decision at a later time.
<br /> e Mr. Gribskov was not convinced the emergency clause was necessary or that an emergency existed.
<br /> Mr. Teague agreed, and suggested the ordinance not go into effect for thirty days.
<br /> Councilw0man Hayward was concerned that the Council, by taking this action on the amendment,
<br /> would actually be making a decision on the proposed project without actually ever discussing
<br /> it.
<br /> After further discussion regarding the effect of postponing action on the ordinance, Dr.
<br /> Purdy moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to amend the motion to remove the emergency clause.
<br /> Motion carried.
<br /> ,
<br /> A vote was taken for second reading of the ordinance by unanimous consent of the Council.
<br /> Councilmen Purdy, Hayward, Beal, Mohr and Gribskov voted in favor. Councilmen McDonald and
<br /> Teague voted no. Further action on the ordinance will take place at the meeting of December
<br /> I 14.
<br /> VI. Zone Change Recommendations:
<br /> 1. Zone Changes Recommended (Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 1970)
<br /> a. State Finance Co. (Minutes of November 25, 1970)
<br /> South and east of Willakenzie Road, west of Goburg Road and north of Cal Young
<br /> Road; C-2 to R-2 PD - Construction of a Planned Unit Development consisting of
<br /> 484 living units plus support building and service commercial buildings is pro-
<br /> posed on 16.25 acres of land located south and east of Willakenzie Road, west
<br /> e of Coburg Road and north of Cal Young Road. The developers of multiple family
<br /> 11/30/70 - 4
<br /> ....
<br />
|