Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~74 <br /> <br />1-. <br /> <br />"As A PERMANENT REPORT, PURSUANT TO THE RESOLUTION OF THE GOMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY <br />OF EUGENE DIRECTING THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO PREPAR~ A REPORT UPON CERTAIN REQUESTS <br />FOR RECLASSIFICATION AND ZONING IN AREAS WITHIN SAID CITY, THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br />HEREBY ADOPTS AS ITS PERMANENT REPORT, THE FOLLOWING: <br /> <br />THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE FOLLOWING REZONING AND CHANGE OF" CLASSIFICATION, <br />TO-WIT:- <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATION OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <br /> <br />tOTS 5 AND 6 OF BLOCK I OF OSBURN ADDITION AND LOTS 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK 9 OF ELiAS <br />STEWART ADDITION TO EUGENE. <br /> <br />PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE BLOCK BOUNDED BY 10TH AVENUE WEST AND <br />11TH AVENUE WEST, BY LINCOLN AND LAWRENCE STREETS; AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE <br />BLOCK BOUNDED BY 11TH AVENUE WEST AND 12TH AVENUE WEST AND LINCOLN AND LAWRENCE STREETS. <br /> <br />REQUEST CHANGE OF CLASSIFICATION FROM R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO C-3 <br />CENTRAL BUSINrSS DISTRICT. <br /> <br />(AFTER PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, IT WAS DEEMED ADVISABLE to REDUCE THE AREA AS <br />ORIGINALLY SHOWN TO THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY) <br /> <br />AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE DENIAL OF THE FOLLOWING PETITION FOR CHANGE OF <br />CLASSIFICATION, TO-WIT:- <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />ARCHIE A. WHIPPS <br /> <br />tOT 5, l3L1CK I OF HALLOCK ADDITION TO EUGENE, OREGON, AS PLATTED AND RECORDED AT" PAGE <br />10 OF VOLUME I I, LANE COUNTY OREGON PLAT RECORDS, IN LANE COUNTY, OREGON. <br />PROPERTY LOCATED AT 754 FILMORE STREET~ <br />REQUESTED CHANGE OF CLASSIFIC~TION FROM R~2 Two FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO M-I liMITED <br />INDUSTRIAL." <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY CRUMBAKER THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING <br />COMMISSION FOR REZONING OF LOTS 5 AND 6 OF BLOCK I~OF OSBURN ADDITION AND LOTS 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK <br />9 OR ELIAS STEWART ADDITION THAT TH!S PROPERTY BE REZONED FROM R-3 TO C-3 BE ACCEPTED. MOTION <br />CARRIED. <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY DAVIS~ ~ECONDED BY SMITH THAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION <br />IN THAT THE PETITION OF ARCHIE A. WHIPPS BE DENIED BE ACCEPTED. <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY SMITH THAT THE MOTION BE WITHDRAWN AND THAT THE PETITION <br />BE REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FOR REPORT. <br /> <br />IT WAS MOVED BY DAVIS, SECONDED BY CRUMBAKER THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED TO PERMIT THE <br />PARTICULAR USE'MR. WHIPPS HAS PLANNED VIS; A TWO-CAR GARAGE TO BE USED AS A CARBURETOR REPAIR <br />SHOP., MOTION CARRIED. <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />A REPORT' OF THE BOARD OF ApPEALS AS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY MAN~GER WAS SUBMITTED AND READ AS <br />FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />"THE BOARD OF ApPEALS HELD A MEETING FRIDAY, JANUARY 6, 1949 AT THE CITY HALL, THE <br />FOLLOWING MEMBERS BEING PRESENT: MR. LUVAAS, MR. UILLILAN, MR. VAALER AND MR. WILMSEN. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />THE FOLLOWING PETITIONS WERE CONSIDERED AND DEC'ISIONS MADE. <br /> <br />I. MR. A. DORSEY OF 1760 W. 12TH REQUESTS PERMISSION TO DIVIDE A 55'xl60' LOT IN TWO <br />PARCELS. THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS LOT IS 8800 SQUARE FEET AND THIS WOULD CREA"E TWO LOTS OF <br />4400 SQUARE FEET EACH. THE BOARD DENIED THE REQUEST AS THE ARE4S DO NOT MEET THE iONING <br />OR~INANOE REQUIREMENTS. <br /> <br />2. <br />LOT <br /> <br />TWO <br /> <br />LOT <br /> <br />MR. W. ROY PARMELEE OF 885 W. 24TH AVENUE REQUESTS PERMISSION TO <br />IN TWO PARCELS. THE TOTAL AREA OF THIS LOT IS 9280 SQUARE FEET. <br />LOTS OF 4640 SQUARE FEET EACH. MR. PARMELEE HAS HIS RESIDENCE ON <br />AND DESIRES TO CONSTRUCT ANOTHER HOME ON THE FRONT. <br /> <br />DIVIDE A 5&'xl60' <br />THIS WOULD CREATE <br />THE REAR 80' OF THE <br /> <br />SINCE THE' SUBDIVIDED PARCELS DO NOT MEET THE AREA REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCES <br />THE REQUEST WAS DENIED. <br /> <br />THE PETITION OF VERA L. WARD FOR REZONIN~ HER PROPERTY AT 1697 RIVERVIEW STREET FOR <br />THE PURPOSE OF EST"A'BLISHING A BEAUTY PARLOR - WAS TABLED BY THE PLANNING C'OMMISSION AND lATER <br />REFERRED TO THE bOARD OF ApPEALS FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. <br /> <br />THIS REQUEST WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD AND THEY RECOGNIZE THAT MRS. WARD HAS SOME <br />MERIT TO HER APPEAL AND FURTHER SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS SPECIAL PERMISSION COULD BE GRANTED <br />MRS. WARD AND THAT SAID PERMISSION BE MADE REVOCABLE UPON NOTICE. HOWEVER, THE ORDINANCE <br />DOES NOT GIVE THE BOARD OF ApPEALS THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT LAND USE VARIANCE, THEREFOR~, THEY <br />FELT BOUND TO REFER IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL WHEREIN AUTHORITY IS VESTED TO TAKE WHATEVER ACTION <br />IS DEEMED ADVISABLE. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />~ <br />