|
<br /> t;',
<br /> Councilwoman Beal wondered what other uses would be allowed in the RP zone. Mr. Saul
<br /> jread the outright permitted uses listed in the Code - clinics, day nurseries, homes for
<br /> ; the aged, multiple-family dwellings, etc. Conditional uses were hospitals, mortuaries,
<br />- . churches, general office not having retail uses, etc. In answer to Mr. Williams, Mr. Saul
<br /> ,said that site review procedures could not be used to control uses, there was no provision
<br /> .in the Code either under SR or PUD procedures whereby specifically permitted uses could
<br /> be denied.
<br /> I
<br />(2323.) Mrs. Beal commented then that if this zone change was approved the city would be unable
<br /> to control the use of the property. Manager answered that the site review provision
<br /> would still apply but only to the compatibility of the development with the surroundings
<br /> 'so far as, physical features were concerned. If some other use permitted in RP zones met
<br /> . ;the criteria set out for design and traffic, then the city couldn't stop that kind of use.
<br /> Council Bill No. 673 - Rezoning to RP-SR property at northeast corner of
<br /> 40th Avenue and Donald Street was read by council bill
<br /> number and title only, there being no council member present requesting that
<br /> it be read in full.
<br /> Mrs. Campbell moved seconded by Mr. McDonald that the bill be read the second
<br /> time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council; that
<br />, findings supporting-the~ezoning ~~ set out in Planning Commission staff notes
<br /> and minutes of October 8, 1974 be adopted by reference thereto, and that
<br /> eriactment be considered at thistim~.
<br />e 'Councilwoman Beal said she would vote against second reading of the bill because it seemed
<br /> !to her that testimony had demonstrated there was sufficient land already zoned for the
<br /> ,uses proposed for this property, also because other permitted uses in the RP zone did not
<br /> !appear to be compatible with the abutting residential area. Councilmen Murray and Wood I
<br /> agreed. J
<br /> J
<br /> Vote was taken on the motion for second reading. Lacking unanimous consent - i
<br /> Council members Williams and McDonald voting aye; Council members Beal, Campbell ,
<br /> Murray, and Wood voting no - the bill was held over for second reading.
<br /> iMr. I
<br /> Sletten asked the Council to corne up with some way of assuring medical/dental
<br /> ;facilities on the property at 40th and Donald if site review procedures couldn't actually 1
<br /> icontrol what went on that property. Council President Williams explained that the issue
<br /> 'would go to a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Council as the result of the ;
<br /> !
<br /> Council's negative action on the rezoning, and that Mr. Sletten's question could be
<br /> raised at that time. ~ _.__ 'T".'''' __._._ ....-.'" ,-
<br /> ,," ,! ' ,
<br /> .,
<br /> "'\Sh~'rt recess was taken.
<br /> '" '
<br />(SI II) , "". \
<br /> II - Items 'a,cted upon with one motion after discussion of individual items if requested.
<br />(0 ) Previou.sly discussed in committee on October 30 (Present: Council President Williams
<br /> (presiding), and council members Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Keller, and
<br /> Murray) and November 6, 1974 (Present: Council President Williams (presiding) and
<br /> council members Hershner, McDonald, Beal, Campbell, Murray, and Wood). Minutes of
<br /> those meetings appear below printed in italics.
<br /> A. Fundin; Social Service Agencies, Joint Social Service Revenue ~har~ng Fund - Copies of
<br /> jreport of joint subcommittee of budget committees (Eugen~, Spnnghe1d, La~e c~unty)
<br /> :were previously distributed to Council members recommend~ng process and cr~ter~a for
<br /> :funding social service agencies from the joint revenue sharin~ fund. Also ~nc1uded
<br /> were lists of names of people on the mental health ,and commun~ ty' he1ath adv~sory com-
<br /> mittees, and a memo from Lee Penny, chairman of the Eugene budget committee, raising
<br /> questions about the proposed guidelines.
<br /> :Mary Hudzikiewicz, member of the joint subcommittee, was in favor of adoption of the
<br /> :proposed guidelines with minor revisions. She suggested inclusion of a provision .
<br /> ; designating responsibility in the local participating governmental agenc~ for appp~nt-
<br /> ,ment of members of the joint subcommittee. And she felt careful discuss~on should
<br /> !be given, to the question of whether there would be funding of new governmental pro-
<br /> I grams only or whether expansion of existing programs would be included.
<br />W\ I
<br /> ,
<br /> :'Manager in response to 'concern expressed by Ms. Penny about the makeup of advisory
<br /> icommittees didn't disagree that the city of Eugene should have a voice in selection of !
<br /> I '. h
<br /> :committee members. He noted, however, the number of present members who were e~t er
<br /> . , iEugenecitizens or from nearby communities. Ms. Penny thought there was no disagr~e-
<br /> Iment on procedure for selecting commLttee members. She felt though that the number
<br /> lof members to represent each jurisdiction should be decided and formally set out in
<br /> ithe guidelines as well as the manne~,in which the city's representatives were to be J
<br /> I
<br /> L!!~leC!.te~!-.,_, ___,"m _~u_.... ,----",
<br /> .-~.- ------- .. ._- .-.-.-.. .__..._.,..:..~-.~.-_._-___.___ __.._~_.,.>.._>-_~~___ _ ~.<.,.-..~,~._ ;._...r.__._...,,_.__ '." .__~_ ..._
<br /> 3eo 11/12/74 - 5
<br />
|