02/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It the city requesting denial of the rezoning and asking that the General Plan be amended to provide for development more in harmony with the character of the ,surrounding neighborhood. He,noted that zoning of the Eugene Sand & Gravel property was not a city responsibility, that the property was in the county, and amendment of the 1990 Plan, he said, required concurrence of Springfield and Lane County as well as Eugene. (0625) e Mr. Saul said that at the time the General Plan was adopted the existence of the sand and gravel operation was recognized. He said that between the time the original rezoning request from Mr. Safley was submitted and the development of the present proposal, staff research with regard to possible reconsideration of the 1990 Plan led to the conclusibn that such re-evaluation and possible amendment would not be appropriate because the Eugene Sand & Gravel and other industrial operations in that area were permanent. Because of that, options were relatively limited for either residential or commercial development. And extension of the industrial uses would create the same types of conflicts alleged to exist. With regard to noise, Mr. Saul said that sound studies indicated that leaving the area an open space would do little to reduce the impact, whereas construction of buildings would lower the sound. For that reason it was felt the commercial uses proposed between the sand and gravel operation and residential development would result in acceptable noise levels in the housing units. Planned unit development procedures were recommended to assure installation of proper sound barriers. He called attention to 12 specific findings in staff notes showing where objectives of the General Plan were met by this proposal over and above simply conforming to the Plan Diagram. He said there was only one medium-density housing project in the area at this time, others fall within the low-density range. Also, he noted that at no time during hearings before the Commission and Council with regard to the rezoning request originally presented by Mr. Safley was the need for medium-density housing in this area contested. (0755) Manager added that in order to give access control to residential streets it was proposed to add site review procedures to the property now zoned for' commercial use, and planned unit development procedures to the property proposed for commercial use across from the sand and gravel operation, thereby making development subject to review by the planning Commission. (0794) Councilman Murray noted ex parte contact with Bruce Taylor consisting of limited discussion with regard to limited procedural questions which Mr. Murray felt did not prejudice his ability to participate in the issue. No other ex parte contacts or reasons for conflict of interest were declared by council members. (0806) e- Councilman Keller wondered what kinds of problems could be anticipated if the land was not developed in the manner proposed. He was not convinced it should be left vacant, but he was concerned about leaving some open space. He asked for further information with regard to the sound study. Mr. Saul explained the sound readings taken at seven locations in the area by the acoustical engineers and. the study based on accepted standards for measuring noise impact, the standards used in determining the sound level at a distance across open space as compared to the same distance with interposition of buildings. In areas not already buffered by buildings, the sound study recommended erection of special masonry walls as a barrier which would result in a marked attenuation of outdoor noises. The study also recommended a number of ways that residential noises could be masked. '- (0874) Councilman Murray referred to the statement that there was no need for commercial d~velopment in that area which he felt .normally would merit consideration. However, he called attention to commercial zones already in that area. He 45 2/10/75 - 3