08/09/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

""'l -- ~~ 0 I Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon August 9, 1971 I Ij Regular meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon was called to order by His I Honor Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30p.m. on August 9, 1971 in the Council Chamber, with the I, following Councilmen present: Messrs. Teague, McDonald and Gribskov; Mrs. Beal and Mrs: Camp- ,I II II bell; Mr. Williams. Mr. Mohr and Mr. Hershner were absent. I( II I. PUBLIC HEARINGS ,I I, A. Appeal from Conditional Use Permit, Day Care Center, 934 Washington (Postponed from II i 7/26/71) I A public hearing was held July 26, 1971 on an appeal from Carl Lemke to use of a home I at 934 Washington as a day care center, and was postponed so that Council could view the property. A tour of the area was taken and Council is ready to take' action. e II 1 ii Mr. Teague moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the Planning Commission recommendation II II be upheld. Motion carried. II !! B. Appeal from Conditional Use Permit, Bmise,Cascade II II II II Thirteen families in the 'I The site for this proposal is located on Brewer Lane. I I, area have objected to the development and have filed an appeal. Their appeal states II ,I that they feel the Planning Commission did not satisfactorily evaluate or consider II " I II the concerns and objections of the residents of the area, or follow the recommenda- I I tions of staff. They dismissed the problem of over-burdening scpools in the area , and did not consider the effects of increased traffic flow through this residential , I i area. They did not evaluate the possible change in character of both the specific I :1 neighborhood and the area that could come about through this proposed addition to il existing and proposed low income housing. Because of this, they felt the Planning I, Commission had not satisfactorily discharged its responsibilities, and appealed 'I II the decision to the City Council. II II Mr. Ed O'Reilly, representing some of the petitioners involved in the appeal, said II II residents of the area had appeared at the Planning Commission public hearing and voiced Ii opposition, but the Planning Commission had approved the petition. Subsequent to I' II this, they filed an appeal. Mr. O'Reilly said some matters had not been properly I 1 considered and there were violations of some prior mandates of the Council. Mr. i I O'Reilly felt it was not proper to increase the density to 11 units per acre. , , The Planning Commission did not give proper consideration to traffic problems and " !' rl to the fact that the only exit and access was by way of Brewer Avenue. Schools are not adequate and will become overcrowded. Mr. O'Reilly did not feel the Planning I, II Commission had full information on these matters and that the code was therefore viol- I ated with reference to planning. He referred to the Willakenzie plan and said that If I' it sets forth criteria for single family residences in this area. Putting 79 II units onto a ten acre tract was in direct conflict with this plan. He referred to I II 11 a similar proposal recently before the Planning Commission for R-2 zoning in this area which was denied by the Planning Commission. He felt this was a similar pro- , II posal with the same traffic and school problems, and that it should also be denied. II i' :/ ,I Ii Mr. George Marx, 1565 McLean Boulevard, spoke in favor of the project. He ,said it had been underway for thirteen months and was designed to fit a community need. This II :1 'I type of project generates community feeling because it is a little different. Sev- II il eral sites had been analyzed before this was chosen. There is a need for such il e ;1 projects, and the public must accept them. School and traffic problems can be ironed Ii II I' out, and there will be such problems with any site. If this site is rejected, the " [I il 1\ project will have to be built in the core area, and this may create a ghetto, while I, 'I here it would have a chance to be something good. ~ I It II Ii Betty Niven, Planning Commission member, commented on the property which Mr. O'Reilly II II I' had said was similar to this project. She pointed out that phat petitioner had II :1 'I requested straight R-2 which would have allowed no control. This proposal, under :1 Ii Planned Unit Development, gives the Planning Commission an opportunity to specify Ii I, II how it will be built, and to have control over the project, and work out problems. Ii II II " She explained the Planned Unit Development with conditional use permit and how it !I " :j applied:>lto controlled income and rent housing, and that it would allow up to 14 units I, q II per acre in this location. She explained the problems with keeping schools filled II jj in some of the older areas, and that it was felt children could be bussed to other' II schools. These must be used to capacity to protect the people's invesfment. She I! Ii 'I I discussed the traffic problems, and said these would have to be resolved:-before the 1i :1 I development could be built. II I, " j ~ Jim Freeman with Boise Cascade, explained FHA requirements and that the number of ;1 I' il units to be constructed would be in acoordance with these requirements. ii !: II Mr. Wendell Rogers, 1630 Curtis Avenue, asked how many units would be allowed on il I ~ this property under the ordinance. City Manager explained the Planned Unit Develop- II if ment requirements and that under conditional use additional density is allowed up il Ii I e to 75% of the density allowed in the next higher zone. Mr. Roge rs felt citizens , " i 'I I I: - I i 8/9/71 - 1 , , 'I " ...