|
<br />!
<br />At C<.;mncilman .McDonal'd' 8.request a map :.of the Hawkins' Reights ar,ea was:
<br />$hown and bQundar;ies of .the -annex.ed area to be z~oned pointe,do'ut. '., . i
<br />
<br />Mrs . Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the bill be read the .,.
<br />second time by council bill riumber ,only, with unanimous consent of the' I
<br />Council, and that enactment 'be considered at this t'ime. Motion carried
<br />unanimously'andthe bill was read t'he second time '.by :council bill'num- 'I
<br />ber only.' . . I
<br />
<br />I I
<br />
<br />:..,;.
<br />
<br />,-
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved.seconded by Mr. 'Wil'liams that the"bill'be approved and i
<br />given final.passage., Rollcall vote. All coun,6ilmen present voting aye:,
<br />the bill was declared passed and numbered'16740.
<br />
<br />" . ,
<br />5~,vac;:itioii'of a11ey'between1ith andi3th~irom";;dd-biock alley east to Wi11amette i:
<br />
<br />; Street - Eugene Hospi tal & Clinic - Planning Commission reconunended denial on
<br />i January 29, 1973.
<br />
<br />, . '., " ..'..... . . . .' . I .
<br />Peti tionE~d by tli~ .Eugene .Hospit;al. &, 'Qlinj,.G .',to p'errp.i t" use.'of the southP"i':iJ,,-.
<br />entrance to their building as a publlC entrance wlthout l-nterference ~~\,>~
<br />fro~h]..,.flow:. of.. (raffic .
<br />
<br />requested vacatiod.
<br />i
<br />i
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr.. Willlams'todeny the
<br />. Motion carried'unanimously.
<br />
<br />. v .- - .'. '.,_ A" '. ,.....- T' ;_'- - . _ _......~.
<br />
<br />6.Ann~x~tion 6.5 acres south of Ch'ula Vista Boulevard opposite Spring Boulevard ~ 'i ,;
<br />Obs~d~ans and John and Sandra Harland - Planning Commission on February 13, 1973
<br />re.commended deni~l. ~'. . .'. . '". .: .' f
<br />
<br />~~~~li,t}"'~~e t~Il~~d~~dt~ l~~~i~~s~~~I~~i~nb}~l~"~h~t~e~~~~~t~ ~~ii~~~~~~~:~~:. ~c
<br />,tton pr~mature' becau,se of lack. of' ,availapil:itOy .of' any Ci ty ~ facili t,ies
<br />'to the area.'
<br />
<br />.~
<br />
<br />Clarenoe ':'Tf~rfa:e~s~,'I9'64 ~.East '~+~th~~A~en1ae, representing the applicants,
<br />said. the 'anri-exat'iDn 18' requested in ord~rto -reduce the Obsidians
<br />insuranc.e premium on 'the property. They "do, not;interidto .:develop the
<br />property, therefore are not asking for,-public facilities.
<br />
<br />Archie Hammond, 2'200 East 29th Avenu'e, did not oppose the annexation
<br />bu.-tdid not.wish his pro-pe;rty to.be"includE2d.if the'a..rea :isannexe'd.
<br />
<br />'~-_..-
<br />
<br />Mrs. Beal, moved seconded by Mr. Williams to deny the 'requested annexa-
<br />tion. Motion carried unanimously..
<br />
<br />._~- ._.-._."..".-~~'",;,~.",:"~'.!...;--:.'
<br />
<br />.'-... .... .. .~.
<br />
<br />7;. cQde Amendment re: Residential-Profession41. District - Planning ClJ1l11I1I.sSion .
<br />: reconmended approval on February 6, 1973. Copies of proposed amebcnr.,nt prfivious1!1i .
<br />. distributed to Council members. ! \_~ .
<br />
<br />t ~,
<br />
<br />The amendments redefine and'rini:t.:c','sI0mewhat uses. permitteq.-- i?-.i;Jle exist-
<br />.ing":g?d'e.~'_~:..~:..:'..>....'-. ' ' , " "".'j' '~~,";-'- .. ., --?-. ^
<br />
<br />Co~n~il' Bill' No ~ .208 "-AmEirfdlng' Re'sidentlal"';Professlonal- District
<br />was :J:3ubmitted. and. read b;x;}council bill number and title only, there
<br />be~ng no councilman present requesting that it be read in full.
<br />
<br />Pu?lic. .hearing ,held with no comment made..
<br />
<br />Counc'ilman Williams asked if a :use permitted and in. existence in-an
<br />RP D;Lstrict under present: Code would have to "phase oui". after two
<br />yetfrs'- if it is not a permitted use under the amendments." Jim Saul,
<br />plann~r, replied;~hat, in some instances non-confirming'uses. would be
<br />consi.dered appropriate, depending upon: the. location. and 'surrounding
<br />u.ses. Ov.er the n,ext few yea'rs the C:ommiss.ion will- be reviewing all .
<br />districts, trying~o bring existing, uses more dlosely in ac~ord with
<br />the General Plan - there may be some changes. He affirmed Councilman
<br />Williams statemen~ that it could in effect take an existing use with
<br />no require!llent for compensation if done on a phase-out basis.
<br />. ~ - .
<br />
<br />James Pearson; president of Planning Commission, explained that the
<br />zoning ordinance does require the Gorpm.ission to establish the period
<br />of amor.tization and the:::orily ones which have been establish.ed are for
<br />:industrial~;us'es inre:$ideritial areas. H.esaid in setting these periods
<br />consideration is 'given to iife of a structure, type of. business, etc.
<br />He felt it unlikely that the COmmission' would recommend an amortiza-
<br />tion schedule short of-the--llsefLll life of a structure or that the
<br />....." .'. '.
<br />.....",~~
<br />
<br />..
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />f>4
<br />
<br />':(~
<br />
<br />3/27/73 - 4
<br />
<br />,
<br />
|