12/18/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr>. Mohr> moved seconded by Mr>s. Beal that Council Bill No. 14-0 r>e: Public Indecency and Council Bill No. 14-1 r>e: Resisting. Ar>r>estbe held until r>epor>ts of the Council subcommi ttee assigned to examine Council Bi11 No. 138 r>e: Disor>der>ly Conduct ar>e available. Motion car>r>ied unanimously. ~ B. Amending Code r>e: Site Review Pr>ocedure Recommended by Planning Commission on November> 20,1972.. Recommended Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Revise.oSite ~eyiew Procedure - On' 'November 20 the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council an amendment ;to the site review provisions of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to expand , ithescope of review. ! ,Planning Director stated that the amendment to the site review provisions of the' Eugene Code have come about through staff concerns and concerns from people \ iworking under this provision. Planning Director explained that when the City lis going through a zone change request and feels there are areas of concern in , , 'traffic, landscaping or in storm drainage, it can ask that the plans for build- , 'ing on that property be brought before the Site Review Committee made up of the :Public Works Department, Planning and Parks Departments. rhis committee would then render,a decision of whether that plan is acceptable and meets the criteria! lof the zoning ordinance and applicable City policies. The proposed change is to: allow the Site Review Committee to look at other factors when the Planning ;Commission feels it necessary. He stated that it is hoped to eliminate the ! :unnecessary use of the Planned Unit Development on projects that are too small to require a full design scope. , _0/ ):Another change would be that appeals on site review will only go to the Planhing" :Commission and not to the City Council. After the Planning Commission. appeals 'could be carried to the courts. At the present time the Planning Department tfeels the site review procedure is working very well from the standpoint of the !staff and the applicants. .There are no formalized public hearing processes. I :The amendment will expand the review as ,shown on the first page of the recom- !mendation, under section 9.688, I through 7. One other change in the ordinance lis that it allows the City to place site review requirements on already exist~ iing_~~ned property by going through a hearing p!ocess similar to a zone change. '-.---- ..- ._._-------"~-.-~. ~~.~-----_.~. -,-~._~_.-~ ._-- ~.~---.._~._._----_._-_...-. '-,~'-~'-'- - Mrs. Beal asked if the fee is adequate to cover, the expenses of the" design teams. Planning Director stated the proposed fee is $50. 'At the . present the Planning Department has no ree schedule. 'Mrs. Campbell asked ifsit~ review requirements would apply in the event of a change of ownership? Planning Director said it happens and the new owner has the right to either follow the plans that were previously approved or come in with a revised plan' that is acceptable to the City. Mrs. Campbell asked about provisions for landscaping. Planning Director 'said Site Review Committee can insist that certain size plantings be e-~~: 'included. (Councilman Hershner asked if this type of ordinance would have been helpful in assuring proper building placement on a piece of property. Planning 'Director stated that is one of the reasons for the drafting of the legislation. 'It does allow us to control the placement in the interior of the site to rmake a better living environment. ICouncil Hershner indicated interest in legislation that would be between the PUD and this ordinance, which would apply to three acres without increasing the density and still allow some other configuration of housing. Planning Director indicated that four of the Planning Commission members are asking for the same type of legislation. Comm ,Mr. Hershner moved seconded by Mr. Bradshaw that the recommended zoning I 12/13/72 ordinance amendment to revise the site review procedure be scheduled for a Pub Hr>ng ]Jui?!:J::.c_hei:3r.!.~g ~ .' Me>.~.~?n. car:.! i ed.., ll!lan.~!Qe>.':1.~},Y "~ ___' .-___ ..~. .__ ~r.__~____~ - ---. ,__'r_ .--" Public Hearing was heid with no questions or comments pr>esented. Council Bill No. 14-6 - Amending Section 9.268, 9.854 and adding Sections 9.688, e~, 9.690 ,9.692 , and 9.624- r>e: Site Review Pr>ocedur>es was submitted and r>ead the fir>st time by council bill number> and title only, ther>e being no councilman pr>esent r>equest- " ing that it be r>ead in full. Mr>. Mohr> moved seconded by Mr>s. Beal that the bill be r>ead the second time by council bill number> only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be con- sider>ed at this time. Motion car>r>ied unanimously and the bill was r>ead the second time by council bill number> only. ~b~ 12/18/72 - 3