CC Minutes - 05/12/03 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4833, an ordinance levying assessments on Royal Avenue. The motion passed, 7:1; Ms. Bettman voting no. E.ACTION: A Motion Concerning the 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) Mr. Pap~, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, moved to affirm the Planning Commission's decision that only the standard subdivision procedures should apply to the proposed four-lot subdivision, including the final order and findings and conclusions of the Eugene City Council regarding Whitbeck Knoll (Attachment A). Mayor Torrey called for council discussion on the motion. Ms. Taylor said she would not support the motion. She believed that the development being proposed should go through the planned unit development (PUD) process, because that was what the residents wanted. The development would have a significant impact on the neighborhood in terms of storm drainage and traffic, and the PUD process would give more scrutiny to the development. She believed similar situations could arise in other areas, and it would be setting a bad precedent not to follow the wishes of local residents. Ms. Bettman believed, contrary to staff's assertions, there was much to be gained from having a public hearing and hearing testimony from people familiar with the area. She supported the use of the PUD process rather than the subdivision process. Ms. Solomon referenced a letter the council received from the developers Alan deGeneault and Gordon Anslow, who had met with the affected property owners. She was satisfied that the issues of concern to the neighbors had been addressed by the developer and believed that the public process had worked. She indicated support for the motion. Mr. Pap~ agreed with the remarks of Ms. Solomon. He applauded that the neighbors and the developer for meeting, even if they had not been able to resolve all the issues. He asked if the developer had followed the applicable City rules. Alissa Hansen of the Planning and Development Department said that the applicant submitted a tentative subdivision application that had been reviewed for completeness and was essentially on hold pending completion of the appeals process. Mr. Pap~ confirmed with Ms. Hansen that a property at 701 feet in elevation in any other area of the city would not be required to go through the PUD process unless there was a PUD overlay the property, and there was no such overlay in this case. Mr. Kelly expressed appreciation to the developers and neighbors. He said that it was clear there were drainage and traffic issues associated with the development, but he believed those would be addressed with the same level of scrutiny through the subdivision process as through the PUD process. He supported the motion. Ms. Nathanson said that she had previously supported the PUD process as she thought there was nothing to gain from it and little to lose. She said that the property was in the boundaries of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 12, 2003 Page 12 Work Session