The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/12/1968 Meeting e I e I . I e . I e ., 5B 2/12/68 Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon February 12, 1968 Continuation of hearing on zoning ordinance was opened by Mayor Cone at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Other councilmen present were: Mrs. Lauris, Dr. Purdy, Mr. McNutt, Mr. Lassen, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDonald, and Mr. Wingard. Councilman Anderson was absent. HEARING ON ZONING ORDINANCE (Continued) 1 Article 19 - General Provisions: Heights, Yard, Area, and Coverage Regulations. Mr. George Keating, representing Rental Property Owners and other organizations, commented on Section 19.05 which provides for two front yards on corner lots. He said it would present problems in existing situations, and asked that a specific statement be included with regard to obtaining a variance for front yards in built up areas. Betty Niven explained that waiver provisions are included in Section 19.07 (f). Dan Herbert, architect, said he felt the same type of waiver that is provided for front yards should be included for side yards. Councilman Wingard explained that side yard variances would still be considered by the Board of Appeals. It was suggested that Section 19.05 contain a cross reference to Section 19.07 to tie the waiver provision to the front yard requirement. Mrs. Niven said such cross reference would probably be included in the process of editing the ordinance, and it was the Council's consensus that it should be included. James Pearson, Planning Commission member, said the word "not" should be deleted from the first sentence in paragraph 2 (aa) of Section 19.07 (e) to make it read: "Required parking spaces shall be permitted on. . . ". Wayne Johnson asked for and received clarification of the requirement in Section 19.06 (a)l for side and back yards when easements are recorded adjacent to or on the building site. George Keating referred back to Article 6, R-2 Limited Multiple-Family Residential, and said he would like to see this section held for further study to see if some provision can be made for better development than allowing increased density by construction of units in addition to existing older improvements. He said he felt the older units should be removed before new construction is allowed. Robert Suess said he felt 10% additional density should be allowed if the older buildings are removed. Mr. Pearson said the study of the issue. present hearings. Planning Commission recognizes this problem and has asked the staff for further He said the problem would be resolved and urged the Council not to let it delay the George Marx commented that the prov~s~ons for lot coverage in Section 19.10 should be extended to cover R-2, R-3, RG, and R-4 districts. Considerable discussion ensued with regard to lot coverage and division of property - condominium versus subdivision - with the result that the City Attorney was requested to report back concerning requirements of the State law on deeding of property in each case. 2 Article 20 - Street Dedication and Special Setback Requirements. George Marx objected to the requirement for dedication of right-of-way in commercial and industrial districts before construction or alteration of a building or use. He asked deletion of Section 20.04 and the words "dedications and" in the last sentence of the second paragraph of Section 20.01. The City Manager said the only right-of-way acquired without compensation is when dedication of proper street width is required before approval of new subdivisions by the Planning Commission. He said it is felt commercial and industrial properties create more traffic hazards and more demands for street width and therefore should dedicate right-of-way to handle those demands. The City Attorney said there is doubt about validity of the requirement since it amounts to taking property without compensation. Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mr. McNutt to delete from the second paragraph of Section "Special setbacks are necessary to implement the requirements for street dedications.", sentence in the same paragraph the words "dedications and", and Section 20.04 entirely. 20.01 the sentence: and from the last Motion carried. George Keating questioned whether the Council has studied and analyzed the street map to be included as a part of the ordinance. The Planning Director explained that the map shows graphically the same streets listed in the present ordinance, with some additions. It was understood the map is still to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and will be brought to the Council with recommendations prior to its adoption with the ordinance. 3 Article 21 - Off-street Parking Requirements. George Keating asked that Section 2l.07(b) be reworded to require a bumper 18" to 24" high instead of "not less than six inches...". He said a six-inch bumper does not provide sufficient protection for neighboring properties. Mr. Pearson said it was felt a six-inch bumper would stop a tire and in the long run is more enduring, whereas anything higher could cause injury. Several suggestions were put forth, and it was the consensus to change the wording to provide protection from encroachment of autos on neighboring properties. Don Amacher, architect, questioned the parking spaces required in Section 21.04 (c)7(cc) - Restaurants. Mr. Pearson said the Planning Commission tied the parking requirements to floor space because it was 2/12/68 - 1 ...olIIIl ~ lit) e 2/12/68 found when it was tied to seating capacity, the design of a building could be changed to increase the capacity thereby calling for more parking space which may not be available. The Planning Director explained a variance could be considered under regulations in Section 27.l0(b) when it can be shown by actual practice a given number of parking spaces are adequate. I Dan Herbert, architec~, .asked deletion of private parking areas in excess of requirements from Section 2l.03(e) with regard to conformance to layout and design_r~gulations contained in Section 21.08. He said it is not a City prerogative to control private"parking areas in excess of .those required by the ordinance. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mr. Wingard to delete the words "and private".from the first line of Section 2l.03(e). Motion carried. 1 Article 22 - Special Permit Requirements for Flood Hazard Area. Jim Britton, consulting engineer, requested that this article be held and considered with Section2.0l(e) when. the Planning staff brings. back a report on recommendat ions presented from engineering organizations.. It was .agreed that Art icle 22 would be held for later discussion. 2 Articles 23 and 24 were presented with no objections voiced. e 3 Article 25 - Procedures for Zoning Amendments, Change in Boundaries of ioning Districts and District Regulations. Bob Suess, on behalf of Henry Camarot, attorney, asked that this article be tabled until Mr. Camarot could be present. Dr. Purdy asked if there was consideration of giving written notice to owners of properties.lying within 300 feet of property petitioned for rezoning. Mrs. Niven said the expense entailed would .necessitate an increase in the. petition filing fees. It was agreed to hold Articles 25 through 29 for discussion at a later meeting. I" 4 Article 30 - Fee Schedule. There was no objection other than comment by Bob Suess that the article should be held until the General Plan is adopted. He said it might expedite completion of the General Plan if the fees remain at the present level. Mr. Suess then read a letter addressed to the Mayor from the Eugene-Springfield Home Builders Association stating the Association's position with regard. to the zoning ordinance under consideration. The Association asked careful consideration of two items before adoption of the ordinance: (1) Section 18.05 - That 10% additional density be allowed if a design team is used; if a design team is not used, 10% additional density be allowed at the discretion of the Planning Commission; and (2) Section 19.07(e) - That more emphasis be placed on maintenance and unsightly front yard parking through recorded covenants to run with the property. . Ii -"" It was agreed the hearing would be continued to 8:00 p.m. on Monday, February 19, 1968. 7:./ / / .' Hugh McKinley City Manager I e ~. I e 2/12/68 - 2 ~