10/24/1983 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Speaking in favor of the ordinance: Jim Saul, 2780 Elinor Street, Eugene, representing the Planning and Land Use Committee of the Eugene Chamber of Commerce, stated that the committee supported the proposed revisions. He expressed the committee's appreciation to Mr. Chenkin and other Planning Department staff for their time in reviewing the procedural changes with the committee. Mr. Saul said the committee wanted to emphasize the fundamental principle of providing for an original determination and then only one appeal beyond that determination. He said the committee felt it important to simplify the procedures. Commenting on specific aspects of the revisions, Mr. Saul said the committee supported the proposed Zone and Sign District Change procedures as recommended. He said the committee recognized that some sensi- tivity might exist on who should hear appeals, but he stressed that the council should recognize the committee's preference for only one appeal hearing. Mr. Saul said the committee supported the recommendation which focused criteria on the Metropolitan and applicable neighborhood refinement plans. He said the definitive approval criteria for Sign District Boundary Changes was welcomed. Mr. Saul stated that the committee disagreed that all six criteria should be applied to parking variances. He said the majority of parking variances involved reduction of parking requirements for certain specialized housing situations. He said the committee felt the first three criteria would be prohibitive when coupled with the criteria specifically related to parking. He said the committee realized that a review of the parking ratios would be part of the overall code update process but that it could not be assured of the outcome. e lone Pierron, 1360 Ferry Street, Eugene, stated that she supported Section 9.752(1) and (2) of the Eugene Code (parking variance criteria) as recommended by staff. She said that more errors existed in Mr. Kloos' letter than were addressed by Mr. Chenkin. She said that she had performed substantial research into zoning law while writing a brief for the Land Use Board of Appeals. She stated that she had also been a librarian for many years for the Bonneville Power Administration and the University of Oregon Bureau of Governmental Research and Service. She briefly reviewed the problems and concerns raised with the acceptance of zoning codes in the 1920's and the subsequent development of the Eugene Code Section 9.752 (1) (a) and (b). She stated that these criteria were found in similar language in the zoning codes of approximately 20 cities comparable to Eugene. She said the criteria served the dual purpose of pro- tecting the individual from too rigid a code and protecting the community from an over-zealous applicant. She said the criteria also served to guide the decision-makers who apply the code. She said the courts had developed case law which ensured reasonably consistent interpretation on appeals from findings based on the criteria. She said Mr. Kloos desired to exclude these criteria when considering off-street parking and loading variances. Referring to Mr. Kloos' letter of October 21 outlining his client's proposed expansion of the Bijou Theater, she said the Planning Commission had granted approval of the second theater contingent on an off-street parking variance. She said that LUBA ruled that the commission had misapplied the law of variance in Oregon in that the practical difficulties cited were self-created. She said the reversal of the commission's decision was based on higher court opinions in Oregon that hold that 1) a person cannot create one's own land use practical difficulties and e MlNUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 2