08/23/1971 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

,..... I ~ 7S- e 8/23/71:' If II I II Mayor Anderson explained his vote~ saying that he had had an opportunity to review " il minutes of previous meetings and testimony of firefighters and members of AFSCME~ II " Ii and that a fundamental purpose of labor unions is the right and privilege of employes :1 to use of legal counsel. In this case, the two unions promulgated the charter Ii I' 11 I 'I amendment which the Mayor and City Council did oppose. He did not think the intent I' Ii of the charter was the issue~ but that anybody who went into court~ whether or not as " ,I 'I " an adversary~ went in with the idea of winning a particular point. He could see no :1 I, reason for the Council to be presented a bill by the parties involved. II II " Planning Commission Items II D. I' I. Meeting of A.1gust 3, 1971 " 1\ I: Recommended denial of two zoning ordinance amendments II I, I' I! 8/18/71 Assistant City Manager explained that an amendment had been proposed to delete agricultural uses involving animals from Section 1.310 of the City Code and allow " Ii them only as accessory .uses on property in conjunction with a dwelling use. e 'I I, II \1 Another amendment was proposed to reduce space requirements between mobile homes " " II from ten feet to six feet. ,I Ii I' Regarding the proposal to delete agricultural uses involving animals from the City il II Code, the Planning Commission felt this amendment was not necessary at this time. I' 'I I It The other amendment to reduce space requirements between mobile homes was brought ,i " because of existing conditions with some mobile homes, and is primarily caused il " because parks were not designed for twenty-four foot wide structures with carports I, " ii or patios. Owners in vIDolation had indicated they would like the requested change, II and if ,the Planning Commission did not approve the reduction~ they would comply Ii ,I with the existing ordinance. State Fire Marshall indicated incidence of fire 'I I; damage in mobile home fires is high~ and he would not approve of a reduction in the It space requirement. .: I: Mel McDermott~ 3625 Willamette~ said he hated to see houses crammed against each il 1, other~ and recommended the Council not allow this reduction. I: Ii John Mulder~ attorney~ Lakewood Mobile Home Park~ said there are now a number of d homes in the park in violation of the ordinance. Compliance will require a great I; expenditure of funds. He said Eugene had more stringent requirements than any I Ii other state in our area. He said the Fire Marshall's recommendation makes their ii request for a change in the ordinance moot, and that they are not pursuing this " Ii Ii rEjquest until they have further information. I il I' 11 In answer to ~ouncilman Williams, Building Superintendent said buildings can be closer than six feet, if there is a fire wall separation. He agreed that mobile I 'I homes could be spaced in this way~ but it would have to be by action of the Zoning II Board of Appeals. In the case of Lakewood Park~ the Zoning Boara would not grant II a blanket request~ but would weigh each case on its own merits. Applicants would have " I II I; jI to file individual requests for hearing. ;1 I: 'I In reply to Mr. Williams~ City Manager said state law sets a minimum and City Council's I' il have the right to establish stricter requirements than the state law provides. I, II I I There was further discussion of comparison between state and city law. I: II II Councilman Williams suggested the Council uphold the Planning Commission recommen- ii dation to deny the request for amendment and make a policy statement it would look - II favorably upon appeals to permit 6' spacing, as long as density within the I II mobile home park did not exceed density permitted in R-l or RA zones. 'I 1 Ii " I Ii Teauge moved seconded by Mr. 'I Ii Mr. McDonald to uphold the Planning Commission recom- I mendation to deny the two zoning ordinance amendments outlined above. , I I I Ken Keefe said he lived in the Lakewood Park and that it was a very nice place to ; ': Ii live~ and that allowance for closer spacing would not be a detriment to such a /: fine park. d II I: " Ii Mr. Mohr said he thought Mr. Williams was exactly correct - that the Council should II ,I deal with these requests on an ad hoc basis. Mr, Gribskov agreed. ; ~ Ol! II Vote taken onvmotion as stated. Motion carried. , I I' , :1 'I I I' , ,I City Manager explained to Council that 1akewood Park is a very quality mobile home I: park, and at the present time the City has an agreement that, if this change in the I' !I ordinance is not approved~ existing violations will be corrected. One method of ii correcting would be to secure variances from the Board of Appeals. " " I! " II " I: " \\ II e I, l' 8/23/71 - 3 ~