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

Home Browse Search

council to refer this matter to the Planning Commission for review and they hope that the Zoning Board of Appeals will contribute and provide observations and e suggestions. Ms. Smith asked if it is correct that CIC is not asking the council to take a position but just to refer this to the Planning Commission. Ms. Murdoch re- sponded that that is correct. Ms. Smith stated that CIC has identified problems and the council could recommend that the Planning Commission conduct a review. Mr. Lindberg agreed and noted that he is delighted that the CIC survey efforts are producing recommendations for change. Ms. Wooten stated that, as council representative to CIC, she would support the recommendation. Ms. Miller stated that whatever the council does, they should request that the -Zoning Board and CIC have joint discussions since they might be able to work out some concerns at that level. She would then request that the Planning Commis- sion deal with the matter. She is pleased to see that problems have been identified. The Hearings Board appeal route should be considered as well since it does not work well for all things. She hoped this would receive serious attention. Ms. Schue agreed that the process should be looked at. She is glad CIC is working on perceived problems. She agrees with Ms. Miller regarding the hearing panel. She felt that it was never very workable. Variances should be examined from beginning to end. John Ohm, 3276 Strathmore Place, stated that he is a member of the Zoning Board of Appeals and has been asked by the other four members to come before the council and note some of the concerns they have with the CIC findings. None of them are desirous of another non-paying job and do not want to continue an e unworkable process, but they do have some concerns with the CIC findings. CIC has not yet come to the Zoning Board of Appeals members for input yet they are trying to make recommendations on the concerns of the citizens who appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Some people come to the Zoning Board of Appeals before the fact and some people come after the fact. People may be trying to obtain a building permit and in that process find out what the Zoning Board of Appeals really addresses. The board addresses a very limited area within the Zoning Code. Its concerns have to do with setbacks, lot coverage, off-street parking requirements, and fence heights. In most cases, the situa- tions considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals do not cause concern for the public at large. Some areas such as setbacks for fire protection, aesthetics, public health, safety, and welfare are of concern to the public at large. Where strict findings of fact based on code criteria are the only basis for a deci- sion, they must address all items except for off-street parking by five specific criteria. Those criteria include: 1) where the strict or literal interpre- tation enforcement of the specific regulation will result in a practical diffi- culty or unncessary physical hardship, 2) that there are exceptional or extra- ordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property, or 3) where the strict or literal interpretation would deprive the applicant. In some cases, the Zoning Board of Appeals must go beyond the strict findings of fact and come up with a very subjective decision as to whether or not to grant a variance. The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals feel that this might best be handled most quickly and most equitably by a broader base than just a paid Hearings Official who has one perception and who has, as a part of the job, the necessity of speeding up the process. When a subjective evaluation is being made, the e MINUTES--Eugene City Council December 9, 1981 Page 8