Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1968 Meeting e I e I . I e . I - .., ~~ ) 61 2/19/68 Council Chamber Eugene, Oregon February 19, 1968 Continuation of hearing on zoning ordinance was opened by Council President Anderson in the absence of Mayor Edwin E. Cone at 8:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. Other councilmen present were: Mrs. Lauris, Dr. Purdy, Mr. Lassen, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDonald, and Mr. Wingard. Mr. McNutt was absent. HEARING ON ZONING ORDINANCE (Continued) 1 Article 25 - Procedures for Zoning Amendments, Change in Boundaries of Zoning Districts and District Regulations. Duane Pinkerton, speaking for Attorney Henry Camarot who was unable to be present, said Mr. Camarot feels consideration should be given to use of an appeals board when disputes arise in rezoning or variance issues. He said quasi legislative functions should remain with the Planning Commission but that quasi judicial functions should lie with another body. With regard to Section 25.08 - Action by City Council - he said the requirement for publishing notice of hearing three times within the week in which the hearing is held would cause unwarranted delay in handling rezoning matters. Also, that where the Council disagrees with the Commission's recommendation, a joint meeting should not be necessary. Mr. Pinkerton took exception too to the provision in Section 25.09 concerning the one-year time limit for resubmission of a rezoning or variance petition if it has been denied. Councilwoman Lauris suggested changing the wording in the first paragraph of Section 25.08 to ". . . three times within the seven days preceding the hearing." She pointed out that the Council makes the final decision in rezoning or variance matters, regardless of the joint meeting. The City Attorney explained that State law governs the publication of hearing notices and that the Council has exclusive jurisdiction in changing zoning regulations or classifications, although State law requires consideration by the Planning Commission. He said the requirement for a joint meeting has been a matter of policy in the past and is being formalized by inclusion in this ordinance. Bob Suess asked if the wording of the ordinance could be condensed to make it more explicit. The City Attorney said it might be rewritten, but it would be necessary to retain all requirements now contained in the document. Mrs. Lauris moved seconded by Mrs. Hayward to change the word "shall" (second line, fourth paragraph, Section 25.08) to "may" to make permissive further report from the Planning Commission in the event of Council disagreement with a Planning Commission recommendation. Mae Thomas, Planning Commission member, suggested that the language in the ordinance be specific - either it is referred, or the Council's decision is final - so as not to cause difficulty for the Commission in making its recommendations. Mrs. Niven and Councilman Lassen expressed the opinion that a joint hearing when there is difference of opinion between the Council and Commission will give both bodies the opportunity to hear a petitioner's arguments at the same time. James Britton, consulting engineer, said if the petitioner has a full staff report before the matter is present to the Planning Commission it would make a difference in the petitioner's presentation. Mrs. Niven pointed out that this is a provision of the new ordinance. A vote was taken on the motion as stated, and motion was defeated - Councilmen Lauris and McDonald voting yes; Councilmen Anderson, Purdy, Lassen, and Hayward voting no; Councilman Wingard abstaining. Councilman Purdy, with regard to Section 25.04, said the owner of property being petitioned for zone change should himself have notice of hearings. Mrs. Niven explained that one of the requirements for a zone change is that the owner himself submit the petition, or that he submits a letter stating he is aware of the petition for rezoning, so that he would automatically know that reclassification of his property is being considered. Dr. Purdy suggested that if owners of property beyond 300 feet of property being considered for reclassification are not given written notice, then either a map should be published in the newspaper or a common description should be included with the metes and bounds description in the published notices. (I will come back now with my 9~-year old recommendation that the attorney's office at the time the ordinance and notice calling hearing are written inserts just after the legal description the "locating" description carried on all the files from the time the petition is submitted - this would save no end of wear and tear on EVERYONE, not just owners of adjacent properties). The consensus was that the staff would institute some procedure to assure inclusion of a street address or other common description in addition to the legal description. 2 Article 26 - Conditional Use Procedures. The City Manager read the purpose of the regulations and there were no comments. 3 Article 27 - Variances and Zoning Board of Appeals. Wayne Johnson said he felt Section 27.03 should include the requirement that members of the Board of Appeals be property owners. He also expressed the opinion that provisions for appointment of Planning Commission members should be included in the zoning ordinance. The City Attorney explained that appointment of Planning Commission members is covered in another section of the Code, and inclusion in this ordinance would simply be a duplication. 4 Article 28 - Planned Unit Development Procedure. Mr. Pearson said the section number "28.04" in the third line of Section 28.02 should read section number "18.04", and it was agreed it would be corrected. Leigh R. Iverson, president of the Eugene Chapter, Oregon Association of Professional Designers, read a 2/19/68 - 1 ... r- 62 e 2/l9/fJ8_ letter from the Association objecting to Section 18.05 referred to in Section 28.02. The Association listed other organizations opposed to the makeup of the "design team" and requested rewriting of the section to include other professional people before adopting of the ordinance. I Mr. Britton referred to Section 28.02 (b) 1. (last sentence of the first paragraph) which calls for a boundary survey by a registered engineer or licensed surveyor plus contour information as a prerequisite to Stage Two approval. He said a boundary survey in some instances involves considerable ~xpense, and at this stage a certified boundary description would serve the purpose. Considerable discussion followed with regard to mandatory or permissive Planning Commission approval of pre-preliminary (Stage One) plans prior to Planning Commission consideration of Stage Two plans, and whether the developer must indicate to the staff or Planning Commission his professional design team at Stage One or Stage Two. Councilman Anderson suggested eliminating the words "during Stage One" in the second sentence of the sixth paragraph of Section 28.02. Dan Herbert and Jon Berry, architects, objected to elimination of the use of the design team during the beginning steps of a planned unit development. Councilman McDonald asked at what stage of the planning a developer would be assured he would be able to carry through with, a planned unit development, and Mrs. Niven replied it would depend upon the project. Councilman Wingard referred. back to Mr. Britton's comments with regard to need for a boundary survey at Stage Two, and asked if a certified site plan would suffice. The Planning Director said boundary surveys and contour information are essential' in the first stage for all concerned to provide accurate information. Councilwoman Lauris suggested adding at the end of the first paragraph under Section 28.02 (b) 1. the words "...if e~isting data ~oes not already provide the necessary information." The Public Woiks Director said that many times City streets and sewers traverse a development, and the survey and contour information provide a method of control for City construction. Mr. Thomas suggested that at the time the pre-preliminary conference is held between the staff and petitioner, the Public Works Department at that time could advise the petitioner as to the scope of engineering data required,. If, engineering requirements are part of. the staff recommendation in pre-preliminary planning and the petitioner takes exception, then he can take it to the Planning Commission. Councilman McDonald inquired if it would be well to have public hearings at Stage One, and Mr. Thomas said it wouldn't because at Stage One there is not sufficient progress on the development to warrant public notice. e I Councilman Lassen suggested the requirement for boundary survey have an alternative of a certified boundary description. Wayne Johnson said he felt the report from the pre-preliminary stage rather than in Stage 3. necessary in the pre-preliminary stage because engineering will be required. Public Works Department should be received 'in the The Public Works Director said the detailed report'is not at that point the problem is deciding whether City ,I, Louis Bonson, designer, again referred to exclusion of designers in'the "design team" makeup contained in Section 18.05 and asked that it be referred back to the: staff. Mr. Johnson askedif'thedesigh team is required duri~g the first, stage and whether the wotHihg of Section ~8.02'requires two applications, one at Stage One and another at Stage Two. The Planning Dire~tor said the intent is that the pre- preliminary approval, does not require a formal, application, merely a letter. of intent on the part of the petitioner. Also, that the design team is to be working on the development in the pre-preliminary stage. Ir.R1twmoved that the section.be ,re.ferred: to the staff and the staff, use these comments to rewrite the I section. . There was no second. I I I Mr. Wingard moved seconded by Mr. Lassen to delete the work. "Application" at the beginning of Section 28.02 and insert instead "A letter of intent" and.to change the wording oi' the last. sentence in the first paragraph, under Section 28.03 (b) 1. to read:'~A bou'ndary surveyor certified boundary description by a registered engineer..~". A vote was taken and. the motion carried. Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Dr. Purdy to delete the sentence "If the staff and applicant reach a satisfactory agreement, the applicant may proceed to prepare data for Stage Two - Preliminary Approval." at the beginning of the sixth paragraph under. Section 28.02 and insert it immediat'ely following the seventh'paragraph in Section 28.02. Motion carried, Mr. Wingard and'Mr: Lassen voting no. e 1 Articles 29 through 36, except Article 30 which was considered at a previous meeting, were presented with no comments. It.was explained that because Article 22 - Special Permit Requirements for Flood Hazard Area - has yet to be..discussed along with establishment of Flood Hazard District in Article 2, and the street map is yet to be considered, in addition,to extensive editing, the ordinance document will not be ready for adoption by the Council for another three or four weeks. A letter from Lloyd Bond, landscape architect, was presented supporting the requirement for a design team as provided in Section 18.05. 2 Mrs. Hayward moved seconded by Mr. Wingard to refer the zoning ordinance to the staff for preparation of the final draft to include amendments as recommended in these public hearings and bring it back to the Council for passage. Motion carried. .. The hearing, was adjourned. I - 2/19/68 - 2 ....