08/26/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" '. With regard to question of public need, Mr. Saul noted statements in the applicant's presentation based on Postal Vacancy Survey and Mr. Safley's attElmpt to responde to the - need for moderate-income housing. Also, the proposed mixture of rental units and owner- ship units (condominium) in the development. He noted that the existing zoning did not neces;J;arily guarantee only single-family homes since multiple-family units could be built under the RA zoning. He said statistics indicated very few families in the Eugene area commanded a salary range that would permit purchase of single-family homes and that factor should be taken into consideration when assessing the question of public need. Mr. Saul again called attention to absence of the petitioner and the "uncomfortable" position of the planning staff in view of the volume of new information presented at this meeting. He also reminded the Council' that if action was taken contrary to the Commission recom- mendation the issue would automatically go to a joint meeting of the Council and the Planning Commission and reopen the public hearing process. (1088) Councilman McDonald said heiwas c~mpletely opposed to the rezoning. He noted the neighborhood reaction in opposition to the proposal and said the development would add to the school population and traffic problems, and would have an adverse effect upon existing single-family homes. He was concerned about the old home now sitting on the property and asked whether it would be protected. (1126) Councilman Keller inquired about the greenway area along the River in terms of private versus public ownership. Assistant Manager replied that public ownership abutting this property was the narrowest strip of any along the River in public ownership. Mr. Saul - added that the width of property owned by the public varied from 150 to 300 feet between the north property line and the riverbank. He said that was not characteristic of public ownership along the River, there was variation in that it was much broader on the north side narrowing to only 30 or 40 feet along the Valley River Center property. The Commission and staff concern with regard to the effect on public access he said led to plans in the preliminary stages for a minimum of 100 feet of open space along the north edge of the proposed development. (1168) Councilman' Murray said he didn't remember any proposal coming to the Council for purchase of that property (referring to the statement that city funds were not available for purchase and the Council's prerogative for authorization of funds). He '.wondered if the parks department had any interest in the property "as opposed to having money".' Assistant Manager-said there was generally acquisition money available, but both the question of money and commitments already made for park land acquisition in other areas toa degree placed limitations upon funds available. Mr. Saul said adequate information had been made available on which to base a decision on the zone change request; the question of whether the city wished to acquire the property, even if funds were available, was irrelevant to the question of appropriate zoning. Councilman McDonald noted interest expressed by the (1190) parks director in adquiring riverfront property at the time the Counc~l toure~ the area. Councilwoman Campbell commented on the reportedly high rate of juvenile delinquency in - the Whiteaker area and said she would have some hesitancy about approving a high concentration of living units. Mr. 'Saul said there was no information with regard to the juvenile delinquency in the area. Mrs. Jensen noted that it was a low-income area and the fact that there was a high rate of delinquency in. comparison to the number of people living there would give the potential for more problems if a high density development was introduced. Councilman Keller asked whether the schools in the area were overcrowded. Mr. Saul pointed out the declining enrollment for Whiteaker School which had a capacity for 336 students but an actual enrollment of 181 for the 1973-74 year compared to 282 for the 1970-71 year. (1219) Elizabeth Fox, 1799 West 25th Avenue, owner of the property under discussio~, said that only this day did she receive notice of this meeting and wondered whether Mr. Safley had received his. She felt he should be present to answer concerns expressed. With regard to neighborhood concerns about potential traffic increase, she said that this was one of the few areas in the community from which residents could reach work, shopping, or recreational areas by walking or use of b~cycles. She stated her intention to live in the development and said the argument that it would add to the delinquency problem was not valid. She mlled attention to the. open space between the proposed deyelopment and the River plus nearby Sladden and Skinners Butte Parks and other public ownership pro- . viding access to the River which would not deprive the neighborhood of open space. Mike Van, 515 Stonegate, said he was a partner in M&M Development and that no notice of the hearing had been received. He said that in,a development of this kind the firm did try to take into accoun~ environmental surroundings through.use of skilled professionals is landscaping, engineering, architecture, etc. He hoped the Council would consider the fact that they were attempting to create a good development. Mrs. Fox said they planned that the old house about which Councilman McDonald had inquired was to be preserved for a community center or as a branch library and study center, something that would be of benefit to the entire community. 300 8/26/74 - 7 .