01/24/1972 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"""III e 9 I ii :, I: followed, eliminating applicants' presentation in full to the Planning Commission,but providing for appeal from the hearings officer's decisions to the Planning Commission, and going directly from the Planning Commission to the courts. The Commission is talking now only of conditional use permits, but would consider at some future time including in the officer's duties hearings on planned unit developments. At the present time the Commission is making this tentative proposition with the in- tent of going ahead with preliminary examination in order to get the process started at the first opportunity, and to get the feeling of the Council members to see if they feel the idea should be pursued. Councilman Williams asked what procedure would be provided should there be an ap- peal when a conditional use permit has been allowed rather than denied, and how many conditional use permits are processed in a given time. He also asked whether p~passing the Council and having hearings before only the officer and the Planning Commission before going to the courts assumes the laws as written are not as they should be. e I Mr. Pearson said appeals on the issuance of permits, granted or denied, would be from the hearings officer to the Planning Commission on the same basis on which they now go from the Planning Commission to the Council. Hopefully, before im- plementation,illf the procedure is adopted, evaluation and improvement of the hear- ings ordinance would provide more specific criteria concerning granting of permits. He said that removing hearings from the law-making body is perhaps a good thing; issues would be heard on the merits of the case rather than on any political con- sideration. The procedure assumes a set of criteria in the ordinance which are extremely good. He said that he does not know of any instance in which the Council had reversed a Planning Commission decision on conditional use permits. The Planning Director said conditional use permit hearings average about 45 a year; 70-75% approved, 10% appealed. Councilman Mohr suggested that the mechanism for establishing administrative hearings before either the Planning Commission or the Council be embodied in the research of the proposed legal intern who, if employed, will explore legal re- quirements on public hearings in general. When that instrument is prepared, policy on hearings can be made. Mrs. Beal remarked it would be well to include the question with the intern's research, if it didn't take too long; however, the Planning Commission is sug- gesting this hearing procedure because of the work load, and action is needed as quickly as possible to relieve them of some of the administrative work and allow their time to be spent on actual planning. Councilman McDonald agreed with Mrs. Beal's comment with regard to the time element and work load, and said he feels Planning Commission appointments and procedures should be examined with the idea that the community is growing beyond the need for a Planning Commission only. I Mayor Anderson replied he would not attempt to delineate duties of Planning Com- mission members but does believe the City has been fortunate in having so many competent citizens willing to spend so much time and effort as members of the Com- mission without compensation. He said he feels it is encumbeat upon the Council to make possible more time for the Commission to spepd on planning duties rather than administrative; he favors the concept of hearings officer as presented and recommended the staff be directed to bring back an ordinance to cover including arrangements for funding. e b;1rl Mohr moved seconded by Mrs. Beal that the staff be csked to prepare an ordinance embodying the concept of an administrative officer for hearings on conditional use permits which come before the Planning Commission, together with estimate of costs involved. Motion carried unanimously. ' F. Code Amendments 1. Definition "Group Care Homes" - Planning commi$sion Report December 14, 1971. The Planning Commission recommended amending Section 9.254 of the Eugene City Code concerning definition of group care homes to read: "Sha11 mean any home or pri vate insti tution maintained and opei1la.Eed for the care, boarding, housing, and training of four (4) or more physically, mentally, or socially handicapped persons or delinquent or dependent persons by any person who is not the parent or guardian of and who is not related by blood, marriage or legal adoption to such persons." I The Planning Director explained the amendment as a housekeeping measure sug- gested by the attorney' s office in order to eliminate use of condi tiona1 use permi ts for many group care proposals; it permi ts group care homes whi ch have persons over 18 years of age in residential districts. Comm 1/12/72 PiJb_ Hrng - The proposed definition was read, and the Planning Director said the City Attorney ad- vised this type language would allow work release and various other programs without having to use a catchall clause allowing use under conditmenal permits for group c~re homes. (See action on pag~tg' of these minutes under Council Bill 9573,Ordinances.) 1/24/72 - 2 ....