05/25/1970 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,... 175 e 5/25/70- It of the public, as well as to cooperate with the applicants for low cost construction. He asked the, Council to protect the rights of other citizens, and that zoning regulations be considered. ;: i I I I I City Manager explained that the ordinance would authorize the Council to exercise powers granted by sections of the State code. Planning Director said it would allow the city to cooperate with non- profi t sponsors and limited dividend corporations, which would be on the tax rolls, and paying their fair share of taxes. It would give the Council the right to waive zoning if this was proved in the best interest of the City. I II r Mr. Otto Vonderheit, 260 East 11th, said it appeared this was the result of actions of the Planning Commission when they adopted a conditional use planned unit development which the Council referred back to them, after an opinion that the ordinance had not been followed. The proposed ordinance would not have the type conditions and criteria required by the present ordinance for this type housing. He could see no reason to adopt this ordinance. Mr. Thomas E. Hedgpeth, 939 Jefferson, asked if this ordinance would allow Fhe Planning Commission to make exceptions to rules that other builders would not be able to get. e The City Manager explained that only non-profit housing corporations or similar agencies would be eligible for these exceptions. Building codes would still have to be complied with. The City Attorney read this section of the State Statute, and explained that this would enable cities to get into low rent housing development programs, and to spend public funds for the purposes named in the statute. In answer to Dur Purdy, Planning Director said some non-profit corporations are interested in using this provision, and that the Planning Commission felt it should go into effect immediately, if at all possible. I Mayor Anderson said the problem of construction of housing for low income people was in itself an emergency. This ordinance really implements the housing resolution passed by the City Council in 196:8. In answer to Mr. Vond~rheit, Mayor said the Council was recognizing a social need which exists today without applying it to a specific case. After further discussion, Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to approve the Plannigg Commission recommendation to amend the city code for acceptance of grant of powers for a city program of low income housing, Motion carried. d. Amendments to Zoning Ordinance - Amendments proposed are 1) Conditional Use Procedures; 2) Variances and Zoning Board of Appeals; 3) Planned Unit Development Procedures; 4) Enforcement regulations. Planning Director reviewed proposed amend- ments which had been reviewed by the Building Official, and recommended by City Attorney, and are regulations to enforce compliance with conditions or failure to adhere to approved plan. City Attorney explained that this ordinance will enable the city to take advantage of equity powers of circuit court to enjoin. I Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to approve the Planning Commission recommen- dation to amend the zoning ordinance relating to conditional use procedures, uarliances, zoning board of appeals, planned unit development procedures and enforcement regu- lations. Motion carried. e. Amend zoning ordinance, add skating rink to conditional uses in C-3 and M-2 - Planning Commission recommended amendment of zoning ordinance Articles, 13 and 15 to provide that buildings and uses which may be permitted conditionally in the C-3 Business District and M-2 Light Industrial District would include indoor skating rinks. '-: Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to amend the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion carried. 3. Willamette Street Paving Assessment Ordinance - Bids have been opened on this project. Analysis proves them exceedingly high, and it is estimated cost to property owner for 36 foot paving would be $13.38 per front foot. If the city participated in additional excavation, front foot cost would be $12.55. The present bid is 86% higher than those received in 1968. Staff recommends that the project be dropped until a more favorable bid can be obtained. The City Manager pointed out that this was not a public hearing on a bid, but a discussion whether the assessment ordinance should have first reading. If the project is to be dropped, the ordinance should not be read. I I I I I .! 11 ~J Mr. Teague moved seconded by Dr. Purdy that, for the time being the Council drop the project. I Councilwoman Hayward felt the property owners should be given an opportunity to decide whether to proceed with the project, when the prices would surely be even higher at a later date. Councilman Williams felt the Council had no, choice but to have a public hearing, as bids on this project were certainly not going to be lower in the future. e 5/25/70 - 7 jj