01/29/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ 40 e 1/29/68 -~,...,. --.--_.--.- Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon . January 29, 1968 I Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the city of Eugene, Oregon - adjourned from the meeting held January 22, 1968 - was called to order by Council President Anderson in the absence of Mayor Edwin E. Cone at 7:30 p.m. on January 29, 1968 in the Council Chamber. Other councilmen present were: Mrs. Lauris, Messrs. Purdy, McNutt, McDonald, and Wingard. Councilmen Hayward and Lassen were absent." HEARING ON ZONING ORDINANCE (Continued) 1 The hearing on the new zoning ordinance was continued, with Mr. George Marx again commenting on Arti- cle 2 - Section 2.0l(e) FH - Flood Hazard Area. He said a revised section was suggested to the Planning office and has not been thoroughly reviewed. The Planning office will have a report on the suggested section before the ordinance is adopted. Mr. Marx also said there were inquiries with regard to the effective date of the ordinance once it is adopted, with or without an emergency clause. The inquiries stemmed. from concern over building permits applied for but not"yet issued, and over plans builders may be developing under pres"ent ordinance which will be negated by provisions of the new ordinance. After considerable discussion, it was generally agreed provision could be made for the Board of Appeals to resolve situations arising during the transi- tory period. e Wayne Johnson, developer, asked if the zoning ordinance would be reviewed after all the sections were discussed. The City Attorney said the ordinance could not be passed section by section, but would have to be adopted in its entirety. I The City Manager continued reading the descriptions and purposes of the ordinance, Articles 7 through 18. Mr. Marx commented that an att:empt was made to establish a district for every controversial use so that it will no longer be necessary for use variances. James Britton, consulting engineer, questioned whether the sale of alcoholic beverages in an R-P dis- trict is a zoning matter (Section 10.03(e)). The City Attorney said it could be of concern to the City because such sales are not desired in a residential district. Otto Poticha, architect, questioned the terms of Section 12.02 (m-l) with regard to establishment of definite boundary lines of Washington Street, 18th Avenue, Hilyard Street, and 5th Avenue within which dwellings are allowed in the C-2 districts. Mr. Marx explained that present C-2 zones surrounding the Central Business District are now developing apartments, so the Planning Commission felt apartments over commercial uses should be permitted in C-2 zones within this particular area to avoid large areas containing non-conforming uses or large areas being adversely affected. .. Mr. Poticha then questioned why Mr. Marx was commenting on various sections of the ordinance. He said he felt the Planning Commission should present it. Mrs, Niven explained that Mr. Marx's comments, generally speaking, are about those regulations which might be cause for concern to the people he is representing. Councilman Purdy asked about Section 12.03 (s) - Billboards as a conditional use in C-2 zones. The City Manager explained that all signs will be treated separately in a sign ordinance, and that the sign regulations contained in the present zoning ordinance will be adopted as a separate ordinance simultaneously with the new zoning ordinance to provide interim regulations until the new sign ordinance is considered and adopted. I With regard to Section 13.02, and parking requirements as provided in Sections 21.04, -.05, and -.06 covering Central Business District, Mr. Poticha asked about off-street parking requirements for residential uses. He said he felt the parking requirements create a liability for apartments in this district when the commercial establishments are not required to provide it. Mr. Pearson, Planning Commission member, explained the basis for the Planning Commission recommendation. He said parking space use by apartment dwellers is not the same as that of workers or shoppers, that any unused apartment off-street parking space can be sold to others, and that on-street parking is discouraged since the streets are needed for moving traffic. Councilman Purdy asked if it would be possible for an apart- ment owner to be in a parking assessment district and also have to provide private parking. The City Manager said it is doubtful a parking district would be created to provide long-term parking for a residential district. The Planning Director stated the entire area under discussion is within the renewal project and if any revision is indicated it can be done at the time off-street parking within the renewal project area is considered. e. With regard to Article 18, Planned Unit Development, Mrs. Niven explained the purpose of the regulations is not primarily to develop low-cost housing. It may be used in such development, but is not a means of increasing density of areas where it is used. It will allow flexibility in use of land, types of dwellings, units allowed, etc. She said the most controversial part was Secfion 18.05 which provides for a design team in the planning process of a planned unit development, and the designation of a licensed architect, licensed landscape architect, or a member of the American Inssitute of Planners as a co-ordinator. .' I Wayne Johnson objected to the requirement for a design team on the basis of added cost to the developer, and Ron Schmaedick said the use of a design team is not practical for small developments. Richard Cleveland, attorney representing several organizations composed of professional engineers and land surveyors, requested modification of Section 18.05 to include engineers and surveyors as co- ordinator, or delete that portion of the section providing for a design team. He submitted a motion - ~ 1/29/68 - 1