01/24/1972 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. followedt eliminating applicants' presentation in :-ull 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 permitst 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 t and to get the feeling of the Conncil memers 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 bypassing 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. . Mr. Pearson said appeals on the issuance of permits t granted or deniedt 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- plementationtif the proced~ is adoptedt 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% approvedt 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 expl.ore 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 ()f PlanningCo~ mission members but does believe the City has been fol't:unate in having so many competent citizens willing to spend so much time and effort as memers of the Com- mission without compensation. He said he feels .it is encUJJi>eDt upon .the.Co\,U1~i1 to make possible inore time for the Commission' to 'spend on planning 'duties, rather ,,' than administrative; he favors the concept pfhearlngs officer as presented and, recommended the staff, be .directed to bring baCk an, ordinance to cover including arrangements fO,r funding. ' ~. : .. '1'.' 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, Pl~ning Commission, ,together with estimate of costs involved. 'Motion carried unanimoUSly. F. Code Amendments 1. Definition "Group Care Homes" - Plann.i.ng Commi$sion Report Deceser 14, 1971. The Planning Commission recOllllilended amending Section 9.254 of the Eugene City Code concerning definition of group care homes to read: "Shall mean any home or private institution maintained and ope.ated for ,the care, boarding, housing~ and training of fQur '(4) or nore physically, mentally, or socially handicapped persons or del.fl1quent or dependent persons b!/ lIn!/ person who is not the parent or guardian of and who is not related b!/ blood, marriage or legal adoption' to such, persOns." ' " The Planning Dire,*or explained the amendment as a housekeeping measure sug- : gested by the attd:rney' s offiice in order to ~liminate qse of a:)J1~ tional use permits for mang group care proposals; it permits g~up care homes which have persons over 18 gears of age in residti:ntial 'districts. " , ',I ' . The' proposed definition was read. and the Planning Director said the~ity Att6~ey ad- vised this type language would allow work release and vaIious other, programs without having to use a catchall clause allowing use under condi td.enal permits for group care homes. (See action on page 12 of these minutes under Council Bill'9573.Ordinances.) Comm 1/12/72 PUb Hmg 1/2~172'- 2 . "<, 9