08/26/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i",:; "..c'.... . ",.., '.~ ; 1,:.\'.;~.'~ ':':1',"',\\';':'; ~:,'" :'~"),\/,.:\~t.l', "!,,;'.'f, J,.' , .--;. '..'1 ' f';~ 'I;': ~5:: :ii ~ " , ,"r; Councilwoman Beal was not in favor of delaying the hearing unless the applicant was :1' given a chance for rebuttal. Stan Long, assistant city att9rney, said that. the 'J,t'\ :\",~ applicant, because of his absence, had waived his right for presentation and for . , ! ~f; " rebutt~i as well. i';> \'" - ' i The hearing continued with Mr. Spivak reading the petition presented by the Whiteaker ) " neighborhood group. "ftl.:_ .. i(.. 't :1, Edna Webster Jensen, 41 Madison, Street, recalled emergency housing established' ~n that (0715 ) ." ., ' area in times past and objected to the possibility of the same type of overcrowded 1'. fl conditions if this development was approved. 'r" i.;' oj Mel Jackson, 2865 Ferry Street, representing the Willamette Greenway Association, felt (0732) ,It ..., the development would be too near the riverbank and would destroy the link between the Ii./. " River and Sladden Park. He suggested that it would be a good idea for the city ~o "I 11 purchase that property to fill the tremendous need for open area near the River as the "~I {' city grows. Yi I, ~, ~, Ir Stephen J. Cross, 140 North Jackson Street, reviewed the statistics contained in the (0744) , :) doc~ent presenting arguments against the rezoning previously handed to' the Council. i,f ~. Those statistics had-to do with density, traffic counts, types of housing; vacancy rates, " construction rates, etc. . Mr. Cross also showed slides of the area, explaining that potential increase of traffic on uackson Street was one of the neighborhood's main III concerns since it was used for travel to Whiteaker School and to Sladden Park. He said i the proposed zoning would be in direct conflict to the 1990 Plan, that increased traffic created by the project would adversely affect quality of the neighborhood . and further segment the area and would,create a potential safety. hazard to elderly people (about 25% of the residents of that area). Mr. Cross, thought-the,Council 'J should reject the requested rezoning and instead consider acquisition of the property I' to .' connect Sladden Park .to the River. If the rezoning was approved, he said, there " sho.uld be more specific information obtained with regard to density and ..traffic flow ,. and direction given to the Whiteaker Council and others interested to develop a broad and general plan of what was desired for that area. Geodesic Jon Spiral, 2620 Potter Street, thought the people living in the neighborhood (0938) should de'cide how the area was to be developed or whether it was to be developed at all. He suggested it would be preferable to keep the property as open space, a good place I to play, not too noisy, a, city advantage of having "country" within its limits. , I ; Rich McNicholas, 55-1/2 Washington Street, presented additional signatures for the petition previously presented from the Whiteaker neighborhood, bringing total signatures to over 400. Public hearing was closed. Assistant Manager noted receipt by Council members of written.. presentation from Mike Safley of M&M Development, applicant for the R-2 zoning~ in addition to the presentation -- from Mr. Cross and written record of Planning Commission consideration of the issue. Jim Saul, planner, said that although both the Planning Commission and staff recommended (0970) approval of this zone change, neither wished to appear to be in a position of advocacy for the change. He said the Commission made sp~cific findings: supporting the change based on staff notes and applicant's statement as to how the zone change ,conformed .to the General Plan, how public need was .shown, .and why that need would be best met by this particular piece of property., That was .a matter of record, he said, and available to Council members. He said after consultation with the Assistant City Attorney with regard to absence of the applicant it was deemed appropriate to make only comments representing professional judgment. Mr. Saul continued .that, without an opportunity to review the written presentation , submitted by Mr. Cross, some significant areas were cover~d which merited further review. Aside from that he said there had been no testimony presented which would warrant a reversal of the Commission recommendation to approve the zone change. He said the question of traffic generated by'R-2 development was reviewed with the Public Works Department, and streets in that area were corrsidet~d adequate if PUD procedures were followed and the Commission made specific findings with regard to a street system to serve the proposed de~elopment. However, he said, the Public Works Department recognized it lay in the path of proposed route for Highway 126 but right-of-way was e not being purchased; Eugene Parks Department could not purchase because of lack of funds, so public' access appeared unattainable. The Commission therefore reasoned I from evaluations based on the General Plan that R-2 level would be appropriate. Density was another concern of the Commission, Mr. ;Saul said, in terms of how it related to the neighborhood 'and to the River. Since no density limitation was indi- cated other than a decision that the property should be developed to, a medium range, it was decided specifics of the development plan itself should be the governing 'factor. 8/26/74 - 6 . 299 .~~