04/12/1982 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. e - Mr. Johnson said that the experience of Cowboy Country following this condi- tional use application had been most frustrating. He said that the application was initially refused by the Planning Department, on the recommendation of the Zoning Administrator. Subsequently, the Planning Department accepted the application on the advice of the City Attorney. Mr. Johnson said that the request was heard by the Hearings Official and was denied. The applicant then appealed the denial to the Planning Commission, which overturned the denial and approved the conditional use permit. He said, however, that the approval included imposition of a fairly complex and unclear set of regulations. At that point, Industrial Finishes withdrew the lease, and Cowboy Country was forced to seek another location. Mr. Johnson said that Cowboy Country then leased property in the Nielsen Building, directly across the street from the Industrial Finishes building. He said that the property was in the same M-2 zone and seemed to be designated for commercial use in the Metropolitan Plan diagram. He said that Cowboy Country's application for a conditional use permit on this parcel was granted by the Hearings Official, again with restrictions attached that were difficult to interpret. Mr. Johnson said that subsequent efforts to lease a portion of the property had involved discussions between the Building Department and the Hearings Official, with the resulting delay causing the loss of a prospective t~a~. Mr. Johnson said that former Planning Department staff member Mary Briggs, who had handled the conditional use permit application, had suggested that Cowboy Country apply for a commercial zone change. He said that the applicant was unable to apply for the zone change until a tax exchange transaction was com- pleted. He said that his client filed for a change at the same time that Fred Meyer applied for a similar change from M-2 to C-2 for the property across the street. He noted that his client had supported the Fred Meyer request. Mr. Johnson said that during hearings on the Fred Meyer request, the issue was raised of conflict between land use designations for property in this area in the Metropolitan Plan and in the West Eugene Industrial Study and the Bethel- Danebo Refinement Plan. He said that at that time the staff and the City, through the Planning Commission, basically determined that the General Plan controlled and proceeded to zone the property commerical, despite the fact that the Fred Meyer property had been rezoned to another industrial use between time of adoption of the General Plan and the time of the C-2 rezoning. Mr. Johnson noted that his client's property had not been the subject of such a reaffirma- tion of industrial zoning. Mr. Johnson said that during the period when his client was preparing the appli- cation for rezoning, Planning Department staff members had not raised objections that there were conflicts with the West Eugene Industrial Study or with the neighborhood refinement plan, although they had discussed problems with the timing of the application and the need for a study of the West 11th commercial corridor. He said that at the December 1, 1982, Planning Commission hearing, the basic issues raised were the need for this study and the question of the specificity of the plan diagram designation. He said that on December 1, 1981, the Planning Commission tabled this application, pending completion of the West 11th study, and set no date for reconsideration. He said that planning commissioners did not learn until after the close of that hearing that the study was not yet funded and that its completion might not take place for a year or MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 12, 1982 Page 3