Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/1974 Meeting M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL July 15, 1974 -- Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held on July 8, 1974 - was called to order by Mayor Lester E. Anderson at 7:30 p.m. on July- 15, 1974 in the Council Chamber with the following Council members present: Tom Williams, James Hershner, H. C. McDonald, Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, Neil Murray, Robert Wood. Councilwoman Beal was absent. I - Liquor License ,- Thriffy=:Drug Store Application for package store license for Thrifty Drug Store at 1560 Coburg Road. Council is being asked,~o approve this license, as the store has a Thursday, July 18 scheduled opening and would like to get the application to the Liquor Commission before that opening. I Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to approve the application. Motion carried unanimously. II - Appeal, Preliminary Approval for Covenant Park PUD at 38th & Hilyard_-, On June 18, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and granted preliminary approval for 24 dwelling units on existing Covenant Presbyterian Church property. The motion for approval included the following four conditions which were accepted and passed unanimously: - 1. ~dditional landscaping should be specified where called for at critical property line locations. 2. A mutual ownership agreement must be established to ensure effective, long-range maintenance and attention to the entire planned unit development. 3. Concerns of the Public Works and Planning Departments be suitably answered prior to final approval. 4. The design Team shall give consideration to: a. the effect present and projected church parking will have on the neighborhood and on the development of the entire parcel; b. service to the community building for deliveries and pick-up from the church and residential sites and how this service shall be . i facili tated; c. lighting and screening of parking, residences and activities for the entire parcel, and effect these will have on adjacent neighbors; d. siting of most southerly residential units in order to provide a more pleasing relationship between these units and the single-family :'.. residences abutting. In conformance with the code the decision was appealed to the Council on June 28 by Mr. and Mrs. Raymond C. Jackson, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Stone and Mrs. Lois H. Tronzo. The Council has in its files staff notes, minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, report from the Planning Commission and the appeal memo from the applicants. e Will Johnston of the Planning staff showed various slides of the area and explained that the proj ect includes 3~ acres, 1. 65 for the 24 dwelling units and ihe community building and 1.86 currently housing the Covenant-Sanctuary. There is one existing parking lot for 30 cars which should be adequate, as the elderly normally do not own as many cars. Conflict of interests - none by the Council. Public hearing was opened. Les Erb, 610 39th E. said that the people of his neighborhood presented the petition on July 3 , 1974, for the purpose of setting over the hearing to a later date. The Council had set. the hearing date for JUJy 22 and he stated not receiving a letter changing the date to the 15th until Friday, July 12. He demanded postponing the hearing to give the proponents ample time to prepare their case. Marshall Webster, 3850 Ferry, stated the proposed buildings are not well integrated with the surrounding residential area and there is inadequate parking both at the church and the dwelling sites. The density factor was of the most concern to him. If his understanding was correct, the proposed 14.55. dwelling units peT' acre would . exceed the 1-10 dwelling units per acre allowed under the 1990 Plan. He did not feel that the Church and Mr. Tomlinson should be allowed to join in partnership to overcome the density rule of dwelling units allowed per acre. The church cannot guarantee either financially or physically at this time the demands they may have to meet immediately. Lois Jackson, 3855 Ferry, stated that at the time of the preliminary hearing most residents of the area were not aware of the PUD. Only prior to the June 8 hearing were they made aware of it. She felt it unfortunate and suggested a need for a change ,S~ 7/15/74 - 1 , in the zoning laws. She referred to a letter of May 2, 1974, to Mr. Will Johnston from Bob Mention, Design Team Coordinator, which stated in part: "It is my understanding that in order to expedite this project, we can assume Pad's position in the PUD process," and "I hope that you will be able to bend your rules sufficiently to accommodate this unusual situation" . She went on to say she did not see anything unusual about rising costs and - interest rates or weather changes. ,This proposal was pushed unrealistically fast to accommodate the economics of the proponents, so the real issue of need for low-cost housing for the elderly has become clouded. The very fact that the Joint Housing Committee, Lane County Housing Authority and the Eugene Planning staff are involved sounds impressive but leaves open:the question of whether anyone has taken a good overall look at it from the standpoint of the stockholder who is the taxpayer, the residents of the adj acent area" or the proposed inhabitants of the project. The Joint Housing Committee has not been involved with the review of the site plans yet is being allowed to push it. If the inhabitants cannot walk one block to the community building, how can they walk 10+ blocks to the nearest grocery store. To the plan itself, Ms. Jackson said, the PUD code has not been met and the site plan is not sufficient. She stated she is not fighting a low~cost housing project but merely fighting this specific site plan for this specific area. On the parking and traffic issue, she stated that church patrons will be monppolizing Ferry Street. There are no sidewalks in the residential area and on-street parking interferes with the motorized delivery of mail during the day. The residents of the proposed development will have to rely on Hilyard for guest parking which is the only parking for the adjoining city park. How long will it be before they'need to widen the street? Ms. Jackson went on to say that the absence of parking for the community building necessitates traffic driving four blocks out of ,their way through a residential district, which is unsuitable. Ms. Jackson's comments also included her belief that the plan fails to recognize density e problems or to meet the quality of the balance of the neighborhood, as, well~as the fact that,the church's one acre of undeveloped property creates a problem for neighbors and park. John W. Robertson, 635 E. 39th, pointed out the fact that the Eugene Code states planned residential development may not be established on less than 4 acres of land. This is a far cry from the 1.65 acres of land and he does not see how the Council could pass any type of use of this land except for residential use. Mayor Anderson, in responding to Mr. Erb, stated that proper notice had been given for the meeting and the Council deliberated in proper fashion in order that both parties might be accommodated equitably. Bob Mention, 860 Olive Street, design te~m coordinator, sa~d that the time is crucial due to inflation in financing. He felt completion of the ~oject would reduce littering problems in the area and problems caused by lack of improved parking facilities. Mr. Mention further said that this is a rather unique condition, where two owners will become a partnership and work with the ,city' to provide much needed housi~g. The density as they see it is 6.84 dwelling units per acre considering the total site. The project has been designed to integrate well. He feels the parking will be adequate because surveys of elderly housing indicate that only 1 space per 5 dwelling units is used, so that there will be additional spaces available for use by the community building. 30 spaces in the church parking lot e have proyen adequate,~this figure based on years of observation and actual head counts. The new church parking lot will provide more and better parking, thus r~lieving the street parking on Ferry Street. ; David Kleger, 2154 Golden Garden Street"stated that the structure provides, under proposed PUD development, a greater chance of housing than would ever be achieved on this piece of property in single family dwellings. Craig Tomlinson, 984 Elizabeth, has been a builder in the area for 12 years, constructing low-cost housing in both Eugene and Springfield. The design as he sees it is excellent and would serve a two-fold purpose, which would be'laccommodating senior citizens as well as the handicapped. As he is the builder on ,this project, he would appreciate a decision promptl~ as financing commitments are at stake. i Don Olson, 1410 West 28th Place, Lane County . H?us.ing Authority" stated interest in housing for the elderly. He has had fine experience in the past with Mr. Tomlinson. Eileen Peterson, 235 W. 35th Place, and an elder of the Presbyterian Church, stated that the church has been alarmed with the mess being made in the parking lot. She felt that the proposed project will eliminate the problem of unauthorized use and litter in the area. Jack Ewing, 2384 Washington, said that as a Presbyterian minister he knows the .churchis . concerned about what happens to the property and is interested in working closely with the tenants and management of the PUD to make it a unified project. He realizes there is a problem with the development being located a distance from stores but this is often necessary because of prohibitive costs otherwise. 7/15/74 - 2 2.54 \ David Hoffman, 1626 Sherwood Place, Planning Commission member, stated that this decision was not an easy one to make. The decision to approve was based on how it would serve' all the residents of Eugene. The Planning Commission at no time considered it as two p~eces ~ of property but rather as a total unified project, which would therefore meet'fhe' dert:Sity ,... requirements. They also based their decision on the fact that additional parking can be provided if the need develops. Improvements and lighting would discourage undesirable uses, he added. Annabel Kitzhaber, 1892 West 34th Avenue, said the LWV supports the project as there is a need for that type of housing in the south Eugene area. Manager pointed out that when the hearing was rescheduled, all parties who could be reached were telephoned and letters ~ere put in the mail the same day. Manager stated he did want it understood that the City would not be in a position to provide greater police patrol in the future because manpower and funds do not appear on the horizon at this point. I Mr. Hoffman, in..answering a question by Mr. Williams, stated that the Planning Commission considered the property as an integral site. In the past, they have used church property and the transfer of density using the entire property for the calculation of residential units. Mr. Williams asked if the fact that the property might later separate would place some requirements on the remaining church property, that all of its density would have been used up. Mr. Hoffman answered that there would be a contract that would be signed by both parties, city and the developer, which would prohibit further development without coming to the Planning Commission for a change in the PUD. 4It Mr. Williams then asked if it is correct to assume that in any RA or Rl zone that, if a housing development were to go into the maximum or near the maximum extent of the total property that, it would be entirely proper to move that housing development to half of the property and put a school on the other half. Mr. Hoffman answered that he was not sure about schools or other uses but that they have in the past done this with churches. Planning Director said that one of the purposes of the PUD situation is to allow for shared use of services and facilities. Transfer density is allowed. It is not considered on a parcel by parcel basis but for the entire development scheme. It would be possible to dedicate the land for school and get that credit transferred into housing. If the church was not on that site at the present time the property would not be penalized. John W. Robertson, 635 E. 39th, said that even though the total acreage is 3.51, 24 units will be going on 1.65 acres and would have to be considered as exceeding the maximum density requirements. ~ Marshall Webster, 3850 Ferry, maintained that the code is definitely being stretched. James Robertson, 30 West 35th, said that the question is what two pieces of property are actually sharing when combined. There are 24 units on half of it and the church on the other half and, when considering the church may expand in the future, it would mean that they would need to expand their parking lot, eliminating trees, etc. There is no shared commitment between the two in that the elderly people will not be using the church site and he did not see how it can be judged as one piece of property. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Williams mov~d ~econded by Mr. Hershner that the,Courici.,L}deny~ the appeal and uphold the actIon of the Planning Commission in approving the PUD and that it execute at least three findings of fact and ask that the City Attorney be prepared to direct further findings as appropriate. The findings would be as follows: That, for purposes of control under the PUD ordinance, find that the one-owner requirement is satisfied that, under the provisions of the code, the density transfer requirement is adequately satisfied, that the deviations of parking are totally insignificant as far as elderly housing is concerned. Mr. Murray stated he favored the motion, that it was well within the law and that it met a well defined public need. Mr. Wood agreed and favored providing much needed 4IIJ elderly housing. A question was raised on the matter of ownership and whether the code is being violated. Manager gave assurance that the Planning Commission is in constant contact with the legal department and nothing would be recommended that was..not legal. Vote was taken on the motion as stated which carried unanimously. 7/15/74 - 3 2.55 I~ I Mayor Anderson adjourned the meeting temporarily for Budget Committee meeting after which the meeting was reconvened for consideration of the following ordinance and resolution: - Council Bill No. 616 - Calling election August 6, 1974 re: City budget outside 6% limitation in the amount of $2,666,746 was read by council bill number and title only, there being no councilman present requesting that it be read in full. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be r.ead the second time, 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. i Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All Council. members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17142. Resolution No.23l0 - Authorizing ballot measure on August 6, 1974 election re: City budget outside 6% limitation in the amount of $2,666,746 was read by number and title only. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to adopt the resolution. Rollcall vote. Motion carried, all Council members present voting aye. ,e ,- Upon motion duly made seconded, and carried, the meeting was adjourned to Monday, July 22, 1974. . ;5p6 Hugh McKinley City Manager - I. . 7/15/74 - 4 2 ~s-A