02/24/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Bpnnie Speilberg, vice chairman of the Human Rights Commission, said the Commission requested the amendments in order to provide better services to the citizens of Eugene. She reviewed provisions of the proposed ordinance (see committee minutes above). (0210) e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. Council Bill No. 736 - Amending City Code Sections 2.260, 2.370, 4.615, 4.620, 4.625, 4.630, 4.635, and 4.645 re: Human Rights was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council member present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously, and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17256. C. Appeal, Preliminary Plan Denial, Southridge PUD Phase 2 recommended by Planning Commission on January 13, 1975. (0284) Jim Saul, planner, showed slides depicting the original Southridge proposal for development of about 107 acres in the South Hills. Planning Commission denied preliminary approval of Phase 2 in the southeastern portion of the property ad- jacentto 52nd Avenue - 47 dwelling units on 12+ acres. Also displayed were sketches showing elevation, type of structures relative height, and site. e Manager noted that copies of the appeal spelling out in detail bases on which the appellant felt the Commission erred in its findings together with copies of staff notes, maps, and minutes of hearings before the Planning Commission on December 10 and 17, 1974 and January 13, 1975 were previously distributed to Council members and made a part of this record by reference thereto. No ex parte contacts or other reasons. for conflict of interest were declared by Council members other than Council- men Williams and Hamel stating that Vern Gleaves, attorney for the appellant, was also counsel for them and their firms. They said they had not discussed the subject appeal with Mr. Gleaves and didn't feel contacts with him would impair their ability to participate in voting on the matter. Public hearing was opened. (0392) Vern Gleaves, attorney representing the applicant [and appellant], stated he did not receive minutes of the January 13 Planning Commission hearing and wondered if they were included in information give Council members. Mr. Saul stated they were, also that it was his understanding acopy had been delivered to Mr. Gleaves. Mr. Gleaves identified himself and pointed out that any review of the Council's de- cision in the event of dissatisfaction with it would have to be based solely on the record of this hearing and evidence included therein. He expressed the opinion that the Council was actually consolidating two appeals into one in this hearing, assuming the staff recommendation for approval [reversed by the Commission]. He said that he would like to question staff members during his presentation without going through the Chair for recognition rather than waiting for staff presentation. The Mayor granted permission for that procedure. e ,~ Mr. Gleaves noted in detail documents which he requested the Council to notice, specifically including the entire City Code, particularly Chapter 9 covering land use planning and zoning, the 1990 Plan, resolution designating special study area 2/24/75 - 4 72.