02/19/1968 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e I e I . I e . I - .., ~~ ) 61 2/19/68 Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon February 19, 1968 Continuation of hearing on zoning ordinance was opened by Council President Anderson in the absence of Mayor Edwin E. Cone at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Other councilmen present were: Mrs. Lauris, Dr. Purdy, Mr. Lassen, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDonald, and Mr. Wingard. Mr. McNutt was absent. HEARING ON ZONING ORDINANCE (Continued) 1 Article 25 - Procedures for Zoning Amendments, Change in Boundaries of Zoning Districts and District Regulations. Duane Pinkerton, speaking for Attorney Henry Camarot who was unable to be present, said Mr. Camarot feels consideration should be given to use of an appeals board when disputes arise in rezoning or variance issues. He said quasi legislative functions should remain with the Planning Commission but that quasi judicial functions should lie with another body. With regard to Section 25.08 - Action by City Council - he said the requirement for publishing notice of hearing three times within the week in which the hearing is held would cause unwarranted delay in handling rezoning matters. Also, that where the Council disagrees with the Commission's recommendation, a joint meeting should not be necessary. Mr. Pinkerton took exception too to the provision in Section 25.09 concerning the one-year time limit for resubmission of a rezoning or variance petition if it has been denied. Councilwoman Lauris suggested changing the wording in the first paragraph of Section 25.08 to ". . . three times within the seven days preceding the hearing." She pointed out that the Council makes the final decision in rezoning or variance matters, regardless of the joint meeting. The City Attorney explained that State law governs the publication of hearing notices and that the Council has exclusive jurisdiction in changing zoning regulations or classifications, although State law requires consideration by the Planning Commission. He said the requirement for a joint meeting has been a matter of policy in the past and is being formalized by inclusion in this ordinance. Bob Suess asked if the wording of the ordinance could be condensed to make it more explicit. The City Attorney said it might be rewritten, but it would be necessary to retain all requirements now contained in the document. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to change the word "shall" (second line, fourth paragraph, Section 25.08) to "may" to make permissive further report from the Planning Commission in the event of Council disagreement with a Planning Commission recommendation. Mae Thomas, Planning Commission member, suggested that the language in the ordinance be specific - either it is referred, or the Council's decision is final - so as not to cause difficulty for the Commission in making its recommendations. Mrs. Niven and Councilman Lassen expressed the opinion that a joint hearing when there is difference of opinion between the Council and Commission will give both bodies the opportunity to hear a petitioner's arguments at the same time. James Britton, consulting engineer, said if the petitioner has a full staff report before the matter is present to the Planning Commission it would make a difference in the petitioner's presentation. Mrs. Niven pointed out that this is a provision of the new ordinance. A vote was taken on the motion as stated, and motion was defeated - Councilmen Lauris and McDonald voting yes; Councilmen Anderson, Purdy, Lassen, and Hayward voting no; Councilman Wingard abstaining. Councilman Purdy, with regard to Section 25.04, said the owner of property being petitioned for zone change should himself have notice of hearings. Mrs. Niven explained that one of the requirements for a zone change is that the owner himself submit the petition, or that he submits a letter stating he is aware of the petition for rezoning, so that he would automatically know that reclassification of his property is being considered. Dr. Purdy suggested that if owners of property beyond 300 feet of property being considered for reclassification are not given written notice, then either a map should be published in the newspaper or a common description should be included with the metes and bounds description in the published notices. (I will come back now with my 9~-year old recommendation that the attorney's office at the time the ordinance and notice calling hearing are written inserts just after the legal description the "locating" description carried on all the files from the time the petition is submitted - this would save no end of wear and tear on EVERYONE, not just owners of adjacent properties). The consensus was that the staff would institute some procedure to assure inclusion of a street address or other common description in addition to the legal description. 2 Article 26 - Conditional Use Procedures. The City Manager read the purpose of the regulations and there were no comments. 3 Article 27 - Variances and Zoning Board of Appeals. Wayne Johnson said he felt Section 27.03 should include the requirement that members of the Board of Appeals be property owners. He also expressed the opinion that provisions for appointment of Planning Commission members should be included in the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney explained that appointment of Planning Commission members is covered in another section of the Code, and inclusion in this ordinance would simply be a duplication. 4 Article 28 - Planned Unit Development Procedure. Mr. Pearson said the section number "28.04" in the third line of Section 28.02 should read section number "18.04", and it was agreed it would be corrected. Leigh R. Iverson, president of the Eugene Chapter, Oregon Association of Professional Designers, read a 2/19/68 - 1 ...