01/27/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e ensure adoption of the revised standards, but they would like to see the motion include language exempting the current project at 38th and Hilyard. He distrib- uted draft suggested language. There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Saul what the final recommendation was on the performance standards. Mr. Saul responded that it is to apply the same performance stand- ards in I-I as in other industrial zones. Ms. Schue asked if this could be considered when the I-I zoning comes up. Mr. Chenkin responded that it could. But, if council desires, they could also include in the motion tonight that any reference to I-I zoning be deleted. It is a policy decision for the council to make. In Item 6, their intent was to consol idate rather than to make more stringent or rigorous conditions. He would suggest that the City Attorney review Mr. Saul's suggested wording to make sure that the intent is met. Regarding all seven items, a detailed report was received from LCDC as to where they saw problems. LCDC staff worked with staff to overcome the problems that the LCDC board had. Their staff said that these changes would work. Ms. Schue asked who was responsible for the proposal to impose special emission levels for the I-I district. Mr. Chenkin responded it was a staff proposal but of course the final decision is up to the council. Mr. Hamel asked if the heat pump situation noted earlier was in a residential or commercial zone. Mr. Chekin stated that it was in a residential area. Ms. Smith added that there have been other concerns expressed about heat pumps, and she is glad to see there may be some protective measures. She asked if the I-I district could be excluded for now. She is concerned about imposing highly restrictive emission standards and about the City's image. She would not want the City to appear negative. She suggested holding off on that part. Mr. Chenkin stated that they could delete that section for now and if it becomes a problem later, staff can bring back the amendment at that time. The proposed performance standards should provide adequate safeguards. Ms. Miller indicated agreement with Mr. Chenkin's statement, and noted that she would like to see special enforcement created. However, she would not want to see things made more difficult for those trying to comply. She is concerned about people taking advantage of the lack of restrictions. She requested that staff "keep an eye" on this item. Regarding No.3, Mayor Keller added that existing businesses today are allowed the opportunity to expand on the property they own. He asked what would happen if they needed additional adjacent land at a later time and how these regulations would apply in that case. Mr. Chenkin stated that the language is intended to exempt existing businesses from non-conforming provisions, but they might not be able to expand onto another piece of property on a different ownership. He does not feel this would be much of a problem with the kinds of businesses that now exist. Mr. Swanson indicated that this could be checked out. Ms. Wooten suggested possible postponement of the final consideration of No.2 until they can look at the Special Light Industrial District package. Ms. Smith suggested postponing only the one section on separate standards for I-I issues and bringing it back later for a review. Mayor Keller stated that unless the council felt strongly about putting more restrictive standards in I-I areas, they could deal with it today. He would think it unfortunate if Eugene were stricter than other areas. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 8