08/28/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon August 28, 1972 . Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held August 14, 1972 - was called to order by Council President Fred Mohr, in the absence of Mayor Anderson, at 7 :30 p. m. on August 28, 1972 in the Council Chamber with the following other councilmen present: Mrs. Beal, Messrs. McDonald, Teague, Williams, Hershner, and Bradshaw. Mrs. Campbell was absent. I - Proclamations A. Canvass of votes cast August 17, 1972 in election to exceed 6% limitation by $2,175,214 was presented, showing votes cast For - 4~339; Against - 3,564. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to accept the proclamation. Motion carried unanimously. B. Proclaiming week of September 4 through 10, 1972 as "Union Label Week" was presented. Assistant Manager explained, on questioning from Co,uncil members, that the Mayor: traditionally makes this type of proclamation, but since he is out of town it was felt better that it be made by the Council collectively. / Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Teague to issue the proclamation. M' ;' d otlon carrle . unanimously. II - Public Hearings A. Appeal, Phase One, Southridge Planned Unit Development (West of Willamette, north of 52nd) - Decision of the Planning Commission at its July 12, 1972 meeting granting pre- liminary approval for Phase One of the Southrdige PUD, located west of Willamette Street north of 52nd Avenue, was appealed to the Council by Jean Smith (Mrs. Richard J.), 5290 Saratoga Street, in her own behalf and representing the South Eugene Homeowner's Association. The appeal was made on the basis that the finding that the permit cri- teria (a) through(e) of Section 9.782 of the Eugene Land Use Ordinance had been met was not supported by evidence in the record. B. Appeal, BALSM PUD (Southwest of Donald, west of Fox Hollow) - Decision of the Planning Commission at its August 7, 1972 meeting granting preliminary approval for the BALSM PUD, located southwest of Donald Street and west of Fox Hollow Road, was appealed to the Council by Cormac J. Dillon, 5410 Saratoga Street, in his own behalf and, representing I the South Eugene Homeowner's Association. The appeal was made on the basis that the finding that the permit criteria (a) through (e) of Section 9.782 of the Eugene Land Use Ordinance had been met was not supported by evidence in the record. I Notices of appeals, copies of which were previously distributed to Council members, . were read, and it was noted that Council had also received copies of memo from the Plan- ning Commission setting forth conditions upon which approval was based, with co~ies of staff notes and Commission minutes of the July 12 and August 7, 1972 meetings. Copies of excerpt 'from the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9.782) governing Permit Criteria were distributed to Council members with agenda of this meeting. I Councilman Mohr explained the nature of the appeals and rules by which the hearing would be conducted. He said the Council has before it substantial record of Planning Com- ,mission hearings and would therefore hear only summary statements as to the issues or new information nq:t:,already in the record. ...The Co~cil, he said, would be considering only whether the Planning Commission erred in making its decision based on ordinances governing planned unit developments. He stated the Council's policy of holding items in the event of disagreement with Planning Commission decisions until such time as it can be discussed at a joint session of the two bodies. Mrs. Baal inquired whether the total project is being considered or only whether the Planning Commission erred. That is, if it is found the Planning Commission, 'did not err according to the permit criteria, must the Council rule in favor of the Planning Commis- sion? Can the Council decide whether the entire project is a good idea? Mr. Mohr said the appellant is not basing the appeal on a matter of judgment but claims the Commission erred in not taking into account certain conditions for planned unit developments. On . further questions from Mr. McDonald, Mr. Mohr said the Council could overturn the Com- mission decision if they decide no error was made in the record or procedure, yet the judgment was wrong. Assistant City Attorney Jim Korth further explained procedure for appeals as governed by ordinance and read the applicable section. He said the final decision would be either that the total proposal meets the applicable criteria or it does not, and in making a decision that the Commission is in error, the error must be designated. .z, ~l:J 8/28/72 - 1 ...