02/08/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Ms. Wooten asked if furniture manufacturing was discussed as a heavy industrial use during Planning Commission discussions. Ms. Bishow said furniture manufacturing would be classified as light/medium industrial use. She said staff and the commission generally feel this could be allowed under a broad interpretation of the amendments that takes into account secondary manufacturing firms that utilize local natural resources such as timber. Ms. Bishow said staff needs direction from the council on how it would like the amendment interpreted. Ms. Wooten asked what type of environmental standards are being discussed for the heavy industrial uses. Ms. Brody said State and Federal environmental standards, as well as regulations in the Comprehensive Development Plan, will apply to the site. Ms. Wooten said information in a previous Planning Commission packet referred to the possibility of aluminum smeltering firms being located on the site. She said the council and staff should be sure what types of industries are being considered for the site. Mr. Holmer asked for clarification of the letter from Mr. Ross, DLCD. Ms. Bishow said Mr. Ross is suggesting that the City Council defer action on the amendments and consider them as part of the Metro Plan update now under discussion. e Mr. VanLandingham said the four Planning Commission members voting in favor of the Awbrey/Meadowview Plan amendment were himself, Mr. Gaydos, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Yordy. Voting against the amendment were Ms. Anderson, Ms. Nathanson, and Eleanor Mulder, who is no longer on the commission. He stressed the Planning Commission did not reach its decision on a growth/no growth basis. He said the minority voted against the amendment because they felt the proposed expansion of the UGB does not meet State land use law criteria. He said the four in support of the amendment recognize the issue as complex and view it as a IIclose call.1I Mr. VanLandingham pointed out for the council some of the more important issues raised in the amendments. The first reason is the demonstrated need for more special heavy industrial use. He said the majority of the commission felt it should show a projected or general need instead of specific businesses waiting for industrial sites. He said Awbrey/Meadowview is distinct from Enid/Awbrey because the latter is in spearate ownership and does not have access by two railroads. Mr. Vanlandingham said the commission recognizes the restrictiveness of special heavy industrial zoning. He said the commission majority prefers the broader interpretation that includes secondary manufacturing. e Mr. Yordy said the entire commission experienced frustration in trying to accommodate a piece of land within the existing categories. He said Awbrey/Meadowview is one of the few sites in the urban area where an MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission Februa ry 8, 1988 Page 3