02/08/1988 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

, Ms. Brody said one difficulty involved with the site is how to treat industrial lands. She said staff is exploring the possibility of using performance standards instead of using five separate zoning districts. She said some of the difficulties about what kinds of uses would be allowed at Awbrey/Meadowview could be resolved with the examination of performance standards. Ms. Wooten asked what prompted staff and the Planning Commission to take action on the Awbrey/Meadowview site at this time. Mr. VanLandingham said one reason is the importance of rail access to heavy industry. Another reason is that before now the industrial triangle has been considered more of a relocation site for heavy industry instead of a recruiting draw. Mr. Gaydos added it appeared there was more of an acceptance of industry during the Metro Plan Mid-Period Review. In response to a question from Mr. Holmer, Mr. Vanlandingham said the Planning Commision has not been influenced by industrial zoning in other areas around the state. Mr. Bennett said he hopes the final staff report will address the potential marketability of the site. Ms. Wooten said she would like more information about the range of uses being proposed for the site. She said she is uncertain about the tit viability of settling secondary manufacturing firms on 40-acre parcels. Ms. Schue asked what is being discussed as a typical parcel size. Ms. Bishow said the average parcel size is 2.3 acres. The minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. She said the bulk of the existing industrial land is in small parcels. She said testimony from property owners in the Enid/Awbrey area centered on the need for a range of parcel sizes and a reduction of the existing 40-acre minimum lot size. Ms. Schue asked if there has ever been an expressed need for a 200-acre parcel in the metro area. Ms. Brody said the only example of a company needing 200 acres was the General Motors plant. She said most of the requests to the Metro Partnership fall in the 20 to 50 acre category. Mr. Vanlandingham pointed out the City Council will have to tackle the contradiction of enlarging Awbrey/Meadowview parcels in light of requests from Enid/Awbrey property owners who want their parcels broken down into smaller lots. He said the Planning Commission's justification is that the Enid/Awbrey parcels cannot be packaged for rail access while under individual ownership. . Mr. Bennett said he would like to see staff inventory information of other industrial areas in Oregon. Ms. Bascom asked if there are alternatives to broadening the types of uses allowed in a special heavy industrial zone. Mr. Vanlandingham said he hopes Jim Saul, representing the Awbrey/Meadowview property owners, will have some answers to the MINUTES--Eugene City Council and Planning Commission February 8, 1988 Page 9