05/13/1985 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Sercombe repeated that the appe11antsl consent was necessary for such an arrangement. Mr. Rutan proposed dropping the definite time limit in order to let the appellants correct their signs through normal processes. Mr. Sercombe explained that they could withdraw their appeal if the new code were more liberal than the old one; if it were as strict, they could present a new appeal. -- Mr. Hansen moved, seconded by Mr. Holmer, to postpone action on variance requests for Kendall Ford, Valley River Dodge, and Dunham Olds-Cadillac to November 25, 1985, at which point a new date can be set if the Sign Code revision is not completed. Councilor Ehrman asked if the attorneys for the three dealerships were in agreement wi th the moti on. Mr. Anderson and Mr. Gardner answered "Yes" and agreed to hold litigation. They also asked to be notified of any public hearings regarding the Sign Code revision. Councilor Wooten emphasized the integrity of the code and declared that the dealerships' case was a unique one. She expressed appreciation to the Sign Coard Board of Appeals for upholding the code. Roll call vote; the motion carried 6:1, with Councilors Wooten, Hansen, Bascom, Ehrman, Holmer, and Miller voting aye; Councilor Rutan voting nay. Ms. Wooten reconvened the meeting at 9:30 p.m. after a five-minute recess. D. Code Amendment Concerning Mobile Homes on Individual Lots in Residential Districts (CA 85-3) Mr. Gleason introduced the topic. Gary Chenkin of the Planning Department gave the staff report. He said the Planning Commission's original plan was to allow mobile homes as an Ilin-fil1 situation" in established neighborhoods. After considerable deliberation, the commission decided this would not be timely at this point. However, it was felt there should be some provision for mobile homes mixed with conventional single-family homes in newly established areas. Mr. Chenkin named the criteria designed to ensure that such development takes places in new areas: 1) The parcel must be vacant at the time of initiation; 2) It must be rezoned to a mobile home category, so that a public hearing process is launched; 3) The parcel must be at least three acres in size; and 4) The newly developing area must be contiguous on at least half of its boundary to developments of not more than two dwelling units per acre. Mr. Chenkin said such areas would obviously be located on the city's peripheries. The "three acres" criterion reflects the code provision that mobile-home subdivisions must be located on a minimum three-acre parcel. Though the latter are not mixed developments, the Planning Commission felt the impact would be similar and thus recommended the same minimum area. A staff memorandum of May 8, 1985, lists development requirements in more detail. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council May 13, 1985 Page 8