01/27/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e No.3 removes references to commercial uses in industrial districts. Those that exist would be allowed to continue in business and could rebuild or expand. It is advisable to protect existing businesses. Certain non-industrial uses, when they provide services to industrial uses, would be allowed; e.g., banks, restau- rants, gas stations, etc. No.5 replaces subjective with objective approval criteria. The provisions of No.6 are rarely used, but they should be updated and keyed to State and Federal requirements. No.7 would not allow PUDs in areas of unique vegetation or open space if alternative buildable areas are available on particular sites. Public hearing was opened. Jim Saul, PO Box 1650, Eugene, stated there are two elements that he had a con- cern with. One is modifications to performance standards in the 1-1 District and recommended standards. Testimony has been submitted on behalf of Cone-Breeden, Spectra-Physics, and the West Terry Street site. The report was distributed December 14, 1981. A portion of that report dealt with this topic. He distrib- uted copies. Performance standards require that certain emissions be confined to within boundaries in the 1-1 district. They have concerns about such a restrictive emission standard. It was assumed that the I-I areas would be attractive to high technology uses and the high standards would be necessary to attain the desired environment. However, this was not verified by direct contact with industry. They urged the special 1-1 restrictions not be adopted. Their concerns are that it would impose exceedingly high expense without cor- responding benefits. Standards this high have been used in only a limited number of jurisdictions. Sometimes it would be impossible to meet these stan- dards if they were rigorously applied. They also introduce a major element of uncertainty. It does not state what technology would be required; Mr. Saul suggested that there be a provision for pre-clearance review. If adopted, this restrictive 1-1 standard could place Eugene at a competitive disadvantage within the state since no other jurisdictions have similar standards. Since it will cost more, then why would people build in Eugene? When the Planning Commission reviewed the 1-1 district, it had not recommended changes to performance stan- dards for the 1-1 district. Instead, they saw them later. Mr. Saul urged limiting emissions to the property of origin in the 1-1 district. That was the standard required of Spectra-Physics when it located here. That would provide consistency with other industrial district performance standards as being proposed. Mr. Saul stated that the second element of concern is that dealing with Item 6. He represented the Lane County Housing Authority on their project at 38th and Hilyard. It was approved by the Hearings Official January 25, 1982. The present code is complex and cumbersome. There were 24 criteria they had to meet. There is substantial overlap between this set of criteria and those criteria imposed for that project, but they are worded differently. He would urge adoption of the proposed changes provided it does not have an effect on the LCHA current project. An appeal could be filed and they are concerned that they will be held up, being heard again under different standards. They want to MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 7