06/08/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e can be one of the first to be considered. Ms. Wooten asked him if they had worked with the neighborhood association. Mr. Humbert stated that they had tried to set up an appointment with the Whiteaker Land Use and Site Review Committee, but at the time of the meeting, all the committee members were ill except for one person. Also, the association wrote the neighborhood group a letter and asked for design input, but to date they have not received any response. Ms. Wooten asked about further projections for subsidized senior units in the City and how many units will be available in what was formerly the Eugene Hotel. Mr. Croteau responded that he did not know. Mr. Lindberg stated that a number of people had mentioned balancing what may be conflicting policies. He asked if there is some reason that this is coming to the council as a zone change request rather than as a variance request. Mr. Croteau stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not allow this "use" as a vari- ance. The use of variances is not available to the Planning Commission or to the council in this instance. Therefore, it can only be considered as a zone change. Mr. Lindberg indicated concern over what appears to be a conflict between the Whiteaker Refinement Plan and the Metropolitan Plan. Mr. Croteau stated that the Metropolitan Plan is the general planning document and the Whiteaker Refinement Plan is a refinement of the Metro Plan. The Metro Plan states medium- to high-density residential as the use for this area. In the plan, specific instructions are given as to how to use the diagram although it is not a zoning map. In view of the Whiteaker Refinement Plan and the Metro- politan Plan, the Planning Commission felt this proposal is an exception. This should not be viewed as a compromising plan. Ya-Po-Ah Terrace is an exceptional case which should be given special consideration. It was also an exceptional case at the time the Whiteaker Plan was being developed. Mr. Lindberg stated that it seems the precedent has already been established, but the Whiteaker Community Council is saying that is not true. Mr. Croteau indicated that one cannot make a determination by just looking at the diagram. The Planning Commission felt this request was in strong conformance to the text of both plans. Ms. Miller indicated that part of the problem is trying to interpret two different planning documents. Mr. Gleason indicated that the refinement plan would allow this development, but even if it did not, the General Plan has overriding authority. Mr. Obie asked what would assure the council that the proposed units would be built in front of the existing development rather than beside it. Mr. Croteau stated that staff had looked at the height limitations and the addition would be allowed to be built up to a height of 500 feet. The only possible area for additional development would be in front of the existing development. In light of the strong concerns of the Planning Commission, the site review process would consider the request that the addition occur in front. Ms. Miller asked if there will be special variances for parking. Mr. Croteau responded that there are. Ms. Miller asked about parking requirements for the addition. Mr. Croteau stated they would need to seek a variance for a reduction in the number of parking spaces. It would be nice if the parking could be underneath the struc- ture, still leaving an open area. MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 8, 1981 Page 12