12/09/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. blocks from Cross to First which run through the center of Lane Plywood Mill. During the time the mill is open, there is a need for a reduced speed limit e because it is used for loading wood. There is no need for lower speeds most of the time, and so the staff is proposing that this be approved except for when the mill is in operation. This could be accomplished by flashing lights or ~hangeable speed limit signs. Mr. Hamel stated, that it could be very dangerous if the speed limit were not lower. That plant runs 8-16 hours per day when the mill is operating. Mr. Hanks stated that the Speed Control Board will make the decision, and if they do not go with the City recommendation, then warning signs will be put in place. Mr. Lindberg asked how hard it would be to change the speed limit signs. Mr. Hanks responded that it could be on a timer. Ms. Miller moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to forward comments to the State Speed Control Board with the changes noted in the staff report of December 4, 1981. Roll call vote; motion carried unani- mously. VI. EUGENE CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND HEARINGS PANEL PROCESSES (memo and additional information distributed) Mr. Gleason introduced Katherine Murdoch, Chairperson of the Citizen Involvement Committee. Ms. Murdoch stated that in February 1981, eIe began looking at the City's current process for granting variance requests and appeals from decisions of the building officials on matters of code interpretation. Currently these e are heard by a five-member Zoning Board of Appeals and can be appealed to the City Council Hearings Panel. Decisions of the Hearings Panel are confirmed by the full council, though no public hearing is held without consent of two-thirds of the council. CIe received a letter from Adrienne Lannom, who felt that this process does not allow for full debate, giving the appearance of a very closed and unfair system. In one case, the Hearings Panel had granted a variance that had been denied by the Zoning Board. Since the Hearings Panel was created in 1972, 22 appeals from the Zoning Board have been heard. None of the Hearings Panel decisions have been re-opened by the council. Larry Re.ed and Bernard Gilkison, Public Works, worked with eIC to provide information on the process. The decision of the Hearings Panel must be based on findings of fact. Concur- rently, CIC was distributing its questionnaire to those attending Zoning Board hearings. The results from the questionnaire showed that the majority of those attending were applicants or representatives of applicants. The public is not really involved at this level. James Pearson, chair of the Planning Commission, had distributed a memo in June outlining alternatives to the variance request appeal system. eIC moved to forward their memo of November 9 to the council, to indicate that the current process is not working. They are recommending that the duties of the Zoning Board be transferred to a hearings official, and suggested that the council decide whether appeals from the hearings official should be heard by the Planning Commission or by the council as a whole. The current process may be "backwards and bottom-heavy." The initial request for variance could be heard by a hearings official and then reviewed by the full Planning Commission or the full council. eIe is merely flagging a process which may need improvement and offering suggestions for change. They are asking the e MINUTES--Eugene eity Council December 9, 1981 Page 7