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

Home Browse Search

He said the considerations looked at in granting parking variances were not e logically related to the notion of practical difficulty and that only the physical characteristics of the site were actually considered. He said the impact on the neighborhood should be emphasized in deciding on the variance. He said it was these types of facts on which the Planning Commission based its decision. He said the variance would be consistent with the behavior of the theater patrons who already walked approximately 400 feet to the theater. He questioned the justification for the maximum 400-foot figure, stating it had been suggested that it might have been based on the standard length of a city block. He referred to an excerpt from the City of Salem code which allowed parking 600 feet from the site. He said that standards or criteria should be applied which were worthy of the magnitude of the impact of the issue. Mr. Kloos said that policies already existed in the Metropolitan Plan and the refinement plan, as listed in his letter, which should control the situation, adding that not granting the variance would only frustrate these policies. He said an alternative to using existing parking would be to tear down residential buildings to create parking lots. He said the issue was a case study for the City and that rigid criteria would create future problems for businesses that wished to expand. Mr. Kloos urged the council to adopt the staff's original recommendation. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Chenkin stated that Eleanor Mulder of the Planning Commission was present to answer any questions. He stated that staff was studying the ratios for parking for all uses. He said that he expected the commission to consider some recom- mendation on parking in either December or January. Responding to Mr. Kloos' e testimony, he stated that the commission could also be considering maximum allowable distances for parking in conjunction with use. He felt the Bijou Theater issue did not speak directly to the agenda item of revised proce- dures, although there might be some connection. He said the council could decide to remedy the situation on behalf of the theater by requiring only the last three criteria for parking variances or by determining the reasonable- ness of the 400-foot maximum distance and extending it. In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin said the commission was recommending the deletion of subsections (1)(c) and (1)(d) of Section 9.752 but stressed that the real issue was whether the remaining three criteria, the first three, should apply to parking variances. In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin explained that the Planning Commission had decided to split the zone changes into two procedures. He said that zone changes with an annexation request would be decided by the commission, but only submitted to the council on appeal; zone changes with no annexation request would be decided by the Hearings Official, and go to the Planning Commission on appeal. He said the commision had decided that it was best not to have a second appeal, but added that the option for the council to hear the appeal was left in the process based on the council's request in January 1983 for some type of review. Mr. Holmer said he was not suggesting abandoning the one hearing-one appeal process but suggested an optional appeal by the council. City Attorney Tim Sercombe said that the revision proposed one appeal, either to the Planning Commission or to the City Council, so a commission appeal would not go on to the council. Mr. Holmer restated his desire to have an optional appeal exercisable e MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 4