Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e Speaking in favor of the ordinance: <br /> Jim Saul, 2780 Elinor Street, Eugene, representing the Planning and Land Use <br /> Committee of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stated that the committee supported <br /> the proposed revisions. He expressed the committee's appreciation to Mr. Chenkin <br /> and other Planning Department staff for their time in reviewing the procedural <br /> changes with the committee. Mr. Saul said the committee wanted to emphasize the <br /> fundamental principle of providing for an original determination and then only <br /> one appeal beyond that determination. He said the committee felt it important <br /> to simplify the procedures. Commenting on specific aspects of the revisions, <br /> Mr. Saul said the committee supported the proposed Zone and Sign District Change <br /> procedures as recommended. He said the committee recognized that some sensi- <br /> tivity might exist on who should hear appeals, but he stressed that the council <br /> should recognize the committee's preference for only one appeal hearing. <br /> Mr. Saul said the committee supported the recommendation which focused criteria <br /> on the Metropolitan and applicable neighborhood refinement plans. He said the <br /> definitive approval criteria for Sign District Boundary Changes was welcomed. <br /> Mr. Saul stated that the committee disagreed that all six criteria should be <br /> applied to parking variances. He said the majority of parking variances involved <br /> reduction of parking requirements for certain specialized housing situations. <br /> He said the committee felt the first three criteria would be prohibitive when <br /> coupled with the criteria specifically related to parking. He said the committee <br /> realized that a review of the parking ratios would be part of the overall code <br /> update process but that it could not be assured of the outcome. <br />e lone Pierron, 1360 Ferry Street, Eugene, stated that she supported Section <br /> 9.752(1) and (2) of the Eugene Code (parking variance criteria) as recommended <br /> by staff. She said that more errors existed in Mr. Kloos' letter than were <br /> addressed by Mr. Chenkin. She said that she had performed substantial research <br /> into zoning law while writing a brief for the Land Use Board of Appeals. She <br /> stated that she had also been a librarian for many years for the Bonneville <br /> Power Administration and the University of Oregon Bureau of Governmental Research <br /> and Service. She briefly reviewed the problems and concerns raised with the <br /> acceptance of zoning codes in the 1920's and the subsequent development of the <br /> Eugene Code Section 9.752 (1) (a) and (b). She stated that these criteria were <br /> found in similar language in the zoning codes of approximately 20 cities <br /> comparable to Eugene. She said the criteria served the dual purpose of pro- <br /> tecting the individual from too rigid a code and protecting the community from <br /> an over-zealous applicant. She said the criteria also served to guide the <br /> decision-makers who apply the code. She said the courts had developed case law <br /> which ensured reasonably consistent interpretation on appeals from findings <br /> based on the criteria. She said Mr. Kloos desired to exclude these criteria <br /> when considering off-street parking and loading variances. Referring to Mr. <br /> Kloos' letter of October 21 outlining his client's proposed expansion of the <br /> Bijou Theater, she said the Planning Commission had granted approval of the <br /> second theater contingent on an off-street parking variance. She said that LUBA <br /> ruled that the commission had misapplied the law of variance in Oregon in that <br /> the practical difficulties cited were self-created. She said the reversal of <br /> the commission's decision was based on higher court opinions in Oregon that hold <br /> that 1) a person cannot create one's own land use practical difficulties and <br />e <br /> MlNUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 2 <br />