CC Minutes - 04/28/03 Mtg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Hirsch said that Patterson School would be demolished. Part of the site would become the entry to the new school, and the remainder would be developed into a play area for children. He said the district proposed to lease the latter area to the City so it could help the district develop it into fields that would be available for both school and community use. He said that the district was considering what to do with Westmoreland School. He understood that the City had expressed no interest in the site for park land, and the consultant was looking at other potential future uses. Mr. Pap~ asked about the City's plans for Parcel B. Mr. Medlin explained that the fields from Parcel A would be reconstructed, and the district agreed to pick up those costs. Mr. Pap~ asked if the City was going to develop the additional half-acre. Mr. Medlin said that extra space was needed to buffer the area from Chambers Street and to accommodate the runoff area needed for ballfields. Councilor Taylor asked if the district was going to pay for fencing. Mr. Medlin said the district agreed to pay for fencing along the separation of the City and district property, as well as fencing along Chambers. The motion passed, 7:1; Councilor Bettman voting no. 3.PUBLIC HEARING: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Decision Affirming the Planning Director's Determination that Only the Standard Subdivision Procedures, Rather than the Site Review or Planned Unit Development Procedures Shall Apply to a Proposed Four-Lot Tentative Subdivision (Whitbeck Knoll) Alissa Hansen of the Planning and Development Department presented the staff report. She noted the criteria for the application from the Eugene Code Section 9.9630(3). Ms. Hansen explained that the appeal was before the council because the property was within the boundaries of the 1974 South Hills Study and a portion of the property was above 701 feet in elevation. For that reason, the planned-unit development (PUD) applicability provision from Section 9.8305(1)(b) was triggered. That provision required the PUD process for the proposed tentative subdivision unless the alternative review procedure was approved pursuant to Section 9.9630(3)(a). She said the alternative review procedure was unique in the code. Ms. Hansen said the code allowed the Planning Director to determine if the standard subdivision, site review, or PUD process should apply to a major development on property above 701 feet. The director's determination was appealable to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Ms. Hansen said at the time the South Hills Study was adopted, the structure for land use decisions was very different than today; PUD decisions were made by the Planning Commission and appealable to the City Council. Now the Hearings Official makes decisions related to PUDs, which are then appealable to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hansen said that the alternative review procedure was the only procedure appealable to the City Council in the current Land Use Code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 28, 2003 Page 4 Regular Meeting