My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/24/1983 Meeting (2)
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1983
>
10/24/1983 Meeting (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2007 10:45:03 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 4:42:31 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
10/24/1983
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> He said the considerations looked at in granting parking variances were not <br />e logically related to the notion of practical difficulty and that only the <br /> physical characteristics of the site were actually considered. He said the <br /> impact on the neighborhood should be emphasized in deciding on the variance. <br /> He said it was these types of facts on which the Planning Commission based its <br /> decision. He said the variance would be consistent with the behavior of the <br /> theater patrons who already walked approximately 400 feet to the theater. He <br /> questioned the justification for the maximum 400-foot figure, stating it had <br /> been suggested that it might have been based on the standard length of a city <br /> block. He referred to an excerpt from the City of Salem code which allowed <br /> parking 600 feet from the site. He said that standards or criteria should be <br /> applied which were worthy of the magnitude of the impact of the issue. <br /> Mr. Kloos said that policies already existed in the Metropolitan Plan and the <br /> refinement plan, as listed in his letter, which should control the situation, <br /> adding that not granting the variance would only frustrate these policies. He <br /> said an alternative to using existing parking would be to tear down residential <br /> buildings to create parking lots. He said the issue was a case study for the <br /> City and that rigid criteria would create future problems for businesses that <br /> wished to expand. Mr. Kloos urged the council to adopt the staff's original <br /> recommendation. <br /> There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. <br /> Mr. Chenkin stated that Eleanor Mulder of the Planning Commission was present to <br /> answer any questions. He stated that staff was studying the ratios for parking <br /> for all uses. He said that he expected the commission to consider some recom- <br /> mendation on parking in either December or January. Responding to Mr. Kloos' <br />e testimony, he stated that the commission could also be considering maximum <br /> allowable distances for parking in conjunction with use. He felt the Bijou <br /> Theater issue did not speak directly to the agenda item of revised proce- <br /> dures, although there might be some connection. He said the council could <br /> decide to remedy the situation on behalf of the theater by requiring only the <br /> last three criteria for parking variances or by determining the reasonable- <br /> ness of the 400-foot maximum distance and extending it. <br /> In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin said the commission was recommending the <br /> deletion of subsections (1)(c) and (1)(d) of Section 9.752 but stressed that the <br /> real issue was whether the remaining three criteria, the first three, should <br /> apply to parking variances. <br /> In response to a question, Mr. Chenkin explained that the Planning Commission <br /> had decided to split the zone changes into two procedures. He said that zone <br /> changes with an annexation request would be decided by the commission, but only <br /> submitted to the council on appeal; zone changes with no annexation request <br /> would be decided by the Hearings Official, and go to the Planning Commission on <br /> appeal. He said the commision had decided that it was best not to have a second <br /> appeal, but added that the option for the council to hear the appeal was left in <br /> the process based on the council's request in January 1983 for some type of <br /> review. Mr. Holmer said he was not suggesting abandoning the one hearing-one <br /> appeal process but suggested an optional appeal by the council. City Attorney <br /> Tim Sercombe said that the revision proposed one appeal, either to the Planning <br /> Commission or to the City Council, so a commission appeal would not go on to the <br /> council. Mr. Holmer restated his desire to have an optional appeal exercisable <br />e <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 24, 1983 Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.