07/14/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

/ was intended to minimize the amount of asphalt parking areas, it was felt that some parking under buildings four stories high would be better than the addition of asphalt ground coverage. ~ Mr. Murray moved second by Mr. Keller to direct staff to prepare the ~ appropriate resolution to implement the proposed refinement of the III-A-3 1" h Wh' k . hb h d . dd" General P an ~n relat~on to t e ltea er nelg or 00 , ln a ltlon recommending a limitation on building height to three stories, also recommending that any future application of this refinement recognize needs as defined in any future Whiteaker neighborhood refinement plan. In making the motion, Mr. Murray said he felt there was need for this refinement in that neighborhood, that it was better than any past proposal for protection of these in single-family residences in that area. Councilman Bradley wondered if the term "amendment" should be included as well as the term "refinement." Mr. Saul answered that the recommendation was to authorize amendment to the Plan with the understanding that refinement plan would follow. Councilman Williams questioned whether this amendment was a suitable approach in that it would change the density only from 20 to 24 units per acre. He thought a more substantive change, perhaps to 36 units per acre, would be more appropriate. Mr. Williams moved second by Mr. Bradley to amend the motion so as to delete the 24 units per acre recommended by the Planning Commission and return to the 36-unit-per-acre limitation recommended by staff. In making the motion, Mr. Williams said he had no way of knowing whether 24 units ~ or 36 units would be a more appropriate limitation in the Whiteaker area. However, ~ he said he did know how many could be constructed using a three-story limit and other factors present in the area. And he was reluctant to go through the plan amendment process to achieve a density limitation that seemed extremely low in the context of what was classed as high-density without a better understanding of the reason for the two different recommendations from staff and the Commission. Vote was taken on the amendment, changing the density limitation to 36 units per acre. Motion carried - Council members Keller, Beal, Williams, Bradley, and Hamel voting aye; Council member Murray, Haws, and Shirey voting no. C?unci~man Bradley th?ugh~ there should be response from staff with regard to the dlfferl~g reco~mendatlons on number of units. Mr. Williams was satisfied with the a~t~on as ~t now stood, and Mr. Murray explained that it had the effect of changlng the denstiy limit from 24 units per acre to 36. Vote was ~aken on the main motion as amended. Motion carried, all Councllmembers present voting aye. Adjournment was considered at this time because of the hour. Item R on the consent calenda: (Cross Case, Skinner Butte) was brought up by Mr. Brad~ey. He felt lt should be acted upon at this meeting because of. the tlme element. Jack Gardner, attorney representing the city in thlS matter, reported that according to the Lane County Sheriff the 4It . Cross would be removed from Skinner Butte on Thursday, July 17, unless an ~p~eal fr?m the court order was filed. Filing of an appeal was awaltlng actlon of the Council. He added that Eugene Sand & Gravel may have filed an appeal today, but if it had been filed he was not aware of it. Also, costs estimated at $2400 would be assessed against the city, he said, if.the Cross was taken down as ordered. 7/14/75 - 13 3&0