Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Kelly said that the next two motions were as a result of a prior discussion regarding the <br />"Other" category. He said if a property stays in PL zoning, there may not be any public notice of <br />development even though there may be an intensification of use. As an example of his concern, <br />Mr. Kelly cited a University parcel which had been a parking lot. It was now going to become a <br />70-unit apartment complex, which would not have gone through any kind of public input, except <br />that there was a site review overlay zone on the property. <br /> <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> amend the PL Public Land zone to require either a site review or conditional <br /> use permit for the intensification of a use within 300 feet of residentially <br /> zoned property. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor asked for clarification on the example. Mr. Kelly said that the parcel would stay as PL <br />use when being transformed from a parking lot to student housing. Mr. Rayor asked if the intent <br />was to have a notice at 300 feet, or to actually require a Type II or higher procedure. Ms. Bishow <br />said that it was the staff understanding of the motion that if a development was proposed on a <br />PL-zoned property and was zoned within 300 feet of a residentially zoned property, and there <br />was intensification of use, then there would be notice provided and an opportunity for public <br />comment before the decision is rendered. For permitted uses, it would be a Type II process, and <br />a Type III process for a conditional use permit. Mr. Kelly said that the 300 feet was not the trigger <br />for the notice provision. <br /> <br />Mr. Farmer said that most typically, zoning ordinances do not have a PL designation. Zoning <br />does not speak to ownership and that perhaps, sometime in the future, this issue will be <br />revisited. He said that in general, it would be appropriate to deal with intensification of use. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said that he supported the motion and that public lands should have the same <br />standards as privately held property. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said that he did not understand why there was a PL zone. <br /> <br /> The motion passed unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly said that the intent of motion I was to address the issue brought forward by Mr. Farmer <br />and step back and take a broad look at PLzoning. <br /> Mr. Kelly, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to add <br /> as a future work program item the evaluation of the PL Public Land zone, <br /> including the need for a distinct PL zone, the list of permitted uses and notice <br /> requirements for changes in the intensification of use. The motion passed <br /> unanimously, 5:0. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to direct the City Manager to <br /> add as a future work program item to find ways to reestablish home <br /> ownership in the University area to increase long-term residency. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman said that motion reflected a concern that she had for some time regarding the <br />diminishing owner-occupied housing in the University area. She suggested that the University <br />neighborhoods be the first area that would be studied. <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council November 1, 2000 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />