03/11/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e e During the staff response, Mr. Chenkin said the Planning Commission was concerned about safe ingress and egress and the capatibility of school buildings. As a result of testimony from the 4-J School District, the commission recommended the site review suffix instead of the more lengthy and costly conditional use permit. The commission wanted to be sure all land use considerations will be addressed when schools are constructed. The Planning Commission had recommended some new standards for non-residential uses in the R-4 zone but specific conditional uses were not changed. He did not think the commission would object to the addition of real estate offices as a conditional use. The staff will consider Mr. Iverson's other suggestions. Replying to questions from Mr. Miller, Mr. Chenkin said a subdivision of 2250 square foot lots could be created, but it probably would not be created very often because the zoning would permit higher density with other configurations. Replying to a question from Ms. Schue, Mr. Chenkin reviewed the site review procedures which can be completed within 30 days if complete information is submitted. There is no public hearing. An appeal is heard by the Hearings Official. The suffix is usually attached during a zone change. Answering questions from Mr. Hansen and Ms. Wooten about home occupations, Mr. Chenkin said the one business vehicle permitted probably could not be a semi-truck because the house would no longer appear to be a home if the truck were parked in front of it on a regular basis. When a business becomes successful and needs more than two employees, neighbors usually complain about the traffic. The City then tries to encourage the business to relocate in an appropriate zone. Generally, enforcement of the zoning ordinance is based on complaints received. Mr. Sercombe said a law partner could work in a home occupation because a partnership and employee relationship can be structured at the same time. During council discussion, Ms. Bascom said she did not want discord with the 4-J School District. She pointed out the district's citing policies seemed to. have worked well. She did not think it wise to require site review approval when it is opposed by the school district on the grounds that there was no evidence that it is needed. Mr. Miller said School District 52 was also concerned about the added expense caused by site review procedures. He pointed out that land for schools is purchased ahead of time and people know how the land will be used. He asked if there were safeguards in the recommended revisions to prevent the creation of special small lots for rental units which might be detrimental to the nei ghborhood. Replying to Mr. Miller's concerns, Mr. Chenkin said the use of the property is not a question during site review procedures. The location of the buildings, driveways, and open space is addressed. The City could address those concerns in the public hearings of the school district, but the City has more authority in the use of site review procedures. The provision for special small lots of 2,250 square feet will probably be used for infill in developed areas. The usual set-backs will be required. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 11, 1985 Page 10