10/24/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- -- e then request relief; and 2) justification or need for variances cannot rest solely on an applicant's desire to enhance profits from the property. She said that Mr. Kloos' letter ignored the first point and omitted the key term solely in'the second point, thus negating the logic of the law. She said the zoning process would be destroyed if self-created hardship or difficulties and the desire for profits could be construed by themselves as sufficient to justify variances. She said LUBA pointed out that the theater applied for and accepted its original conditional use permit to operate in an historic building with full recognition of the City's off-street parking requirements for theaters and that the theater had no inalienable right to expand when testimony in the record showed that its present operation was incompatible with the neighborhood. She said Mr. Kloos wanted to exclude all the legally accepted applications and concepts of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardships from off-street parking and loading variances because the courts stated there were two unac- ceptable concepts which affected his clients. She said LUBA stated that some commission findings on other code criteria were IImarginal at best.1I She said LUBA cited a lack of facts and evidence to support findings involving Code Section 9.752 (2) (a),(b), and (c)--the only code sections desired for retention by Mr. Kloos for consideration of parking variances. She said it appeared the request by Mr. Kloos' client could not even meet these criteria. Ms. Pi erron said she felt the City should have a code with the greatest benefit to the entire community. She said the issues of compatibility, exceptional circumstances, and practical difficulty would also arise in applications for off-street parking and loading variances as in other variances. She asked why the applicants for these variances and the community should be denied the protection offered by these exceptions and why the decision-makers should be deprived of the guidance e provided by the criteria. She referred to her written testimony distributed to the council which addressed the four rationales used by Mr. Kloos in his proposal. Commenting on Mr. Saul's testimony, she said his hypothetical nursing home situation would be allowed to have reduced off-street parking if it clearly showed its reduced need for such parking, with or without the practical difficulty or exceptional circumstances. She said the decision findings would have to withstand appeal, something which would be easier with the inclusion of the Section 9.752 (1) (b) clause as supported by case law. Ms. Pierron urged the council to adopt the variance section as submitted by staff. Speaking in opposition to the ordinance: Bill Kloos, 915 Oak Street #200, Eugene, representing the Bijou Theater, said the Planning Commission had approved on appeal from the Hearings Official the expansion of the theater to modify the conditional use permit and alSO-foot variance to the off-street parking criteria of no more than 400 feet from the si te. He said LUBA affirmed the decision with the exception of the parking variance, stating that the findings were inadequate in meeting the practical difficulty standard. He stated that variance law was local law and that there was no applicable state or common law. He questioned why the criteria for parking variances were more stringent than for other variances, but not as significant. Referring to his letter, Mr. Kloos said he had not meant to imply that the Planning Commission had reversed its original position. He said the June 1983 draft of the proposed revisions stated that only the last three criteria were to be applicable to off-street parking and loading variances. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 3