|
<br />e
<br />
<br />Mr. Rutan said the provisions for special small lots permit them under certain
<br />conditions, but many of them in one place would not be economically feasible.
<br />The administration of the site review procedures has been smooth. He did not
<br />think they would create problems for the school districts. Some problems have
<br />been created by the construction of large buildings, such as churches, in
<br />residential neighborhoods, and the site review requirement could prevent such
<br />problems.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />Ms. Schue said cooperation with the 4-J School District has not always been
<br />easy because it has its own procedures. The site review requirement seems
<br />sensible for the protection of the neighbors. The City has expertise in land
<br />use planning and the school district has expertise in education. The location
<br />of driveways in relation to the use of the street is City-type expertise. She
<br />thought it appropriate that the City review those kinds of things.
<br />
<br />Ms. Ehrman agreed with Ms. Schue and Mr. Rutan. Coordination with the school
<br />district when schools are first planned would prevent problems.
<br />
<br />Mr. Hansen said almost every other major construction project in the city has
<br />a site review. He thought the procedures are appropriate for schools.
<br />
<br />Mr. Miller expressed concern about the vacant properties zoned for high
<br />density in Ward 6. He wanted to be sure housing for low income people is
<br />balanced by housing for people with moderate and high incomes. Mr. Chenkin
<br />said most of the special small lots would be in the developed inner city and
<br />perhaps around existing commercial nodes. For example, in the Westside
<br />Neighborhood there are large single-family homes on large lots zoned R-2.
<br />Some people are concerned the houses will be replaced by four- or six-plexes.
<br />The special small lot is an option which might prevent the destruction of the
<br />large homes. Ward 6 is mostly zoned RA and R-l. Special small lots are not
<br />likely to be created there.
<br />
<br />CB 2813-An ordinance concerning residential zoning district
<br />regulations; amending sections 4.355, 4.375, 4.990,
<br />7.180, 7.197, 9.015, 9.060, 9.095, 9.268, 9.270, 9.308,
<br />9.322, 9.336, 9.364, 9.378, 9.402, 9.439, 9.440, 9.443,
<br />9.496, 9.498, 9.502, 9.510, 9.534, 9.540, 9.542, 9.544,
<br />9.546, 9.550, 9.556, 9.562, 9.567, 9.592, 9.607, 9.808,
<br />and 9.810 of the Eugene Code, 1971; repealing sections
<br />9.254, 9.310, 9.312, 9.324, 9.326, 9.338, 9.340, 9.350,
<br />9.352, 9.354, 9.366, 9.368, 9.380, 9.382, 9.500, 9.504,
<br />9.548, and 9.560 of that code; adding sections 9.384,
<br />9.386, and 9.628; adding real estate offices as a
<br />conditional use in the R-4 zoning district; and
<br />declaring an emergency.
<br />
<br />Ms. Wooten moved, seconded by Mr. Hansen, that the bill as
<br />amended to include real estate offices as a conditional use in
<br />the R-4 zoning district be read the second time by council bill
<br />number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that
<br />enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; the
<br />motion carried unanimously, 8:0.
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council
<br />
<br />March 11, 1985
<br />
<br />Page 11
<br />
|