02/13/1984 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e application, Ms. Erickson said that the current residential zoning complies with the general design of the Metro Plan in that the existing residences were not rezoned to Industrial zoning by the County. She believes that any industrial expansion is to occur on the vacant land within the Glenwood area. Ms. Erickson said the council should consider the Glenwood area as a special case. e In response to comments raised by Ms. Marino, Mr. Farthing reminded the council that the area has always had only one access route, but he feels the quality of the access has improved. He stated that he does not know what compromise could be made between the applicants and the residents to solve the access problems. He said the letters from Mr. Gordon and Mr. Vik address the access problems south of the railroad tracks and that his client has expressed his willingness to study alternatives to these access problems, but he stated that the Public Works Department 'must first study the road patterns. He said the major problem is the 40-foot width of the subdivision streets in the area. In regard to the task force, Mr. Farthing said he does not understand how it will affect the present application, its charge being to address land use designations and the jurisdictional issue. He reminded the council that the Glenwood area originally had been designated for 90 percent light-medium industrial uses and that a substantial amount of residential land was designated in the Metro Plan as a compromise. In response to comments made by Ms. Erickson, Mr. Farthing stated that his client is looking at an 18-month period for the annexation of 3.3 acres to an existing facility since the original application. He did not feel that the intent of the Metro Plan was to delay such annexation without reason. He recognized the concerns of the citizens, but he stressed that the area is designated as' Light-Medium Industrial. He said he believed that the annexation is justified. In regard to the comment on the County retaining the residential zoning for the residences, Mr. Farthing said it is the policy of Lane County to retain residential zoning unless commercial or industrial uses exist on the property. He said that such actions were merely consistent with the County's policies in applying area-wide zoning. Mr. Farthing restated that he believes that the applicable criteria for the annexation have been addressed and he requested that the council recommend that the annexation be approved and grant the rezoning request. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. In response to a question, Ms. Jones stated that no specific policy exists between the Cities of Eugene and Springfield to delay any annexation requests in conjunction with the Glenwood Jurisdictional Study. In regard to the zoning, Ms. Jones referred to page 111-3 of the staff notes and reviewed the present and proposed zoning for the area in question. She explained that the church property would be the only residentially zoned property if the annexation and rezoning were approved. In response to another question, Ms. Jones stated that no other annexation requests for the Glenwood area have been pending since the summer of 1983. In response to a request by the council, Roger Rutan, President of the Eugene Planning Commission, stated that Ms. Jones had already summarized the recommen- dation of the commission. He explained that the intent of the commission's action is to acknowledge that the applicant has met the annexation criteria and e MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 13, 1984 Page 4