04/12/1982 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e - two. On that basis, the applicant filed an appeal to the City Council, main- taining that the decision to table violated the bylaws of the Planning Commis- sion and also violated laws of due process, because failure to designate a specific time for reconsideration was tantamount to denial. Mr. Johnson said that, on the advice of the City Attorney, the Planning Commission and staff decided they had made an error and held a second hearing on the item on January 18, 1982. He said there was no opportunity for public testimony at that time. He said that the issue of the refinement plan was raised at that hearing by a member of the commission and that one member of the commission found a statement in the plan to the effect that areas not otherwise specifically addressed in the map should retain their industrial designations. Mr. Johnson referred to the minutes of the January 18, 1982, hearing and noted that two commissioners had said that their intent to vote for the zone change had been swayed as a result of reading this new language in the refinement plan, despite the fact that the adopting resolution for the Bethel-Danebo refinement plan states specifically that the action recommendations in the plan are not City policy, and despite the fact that in consideration of the Fred Meyer request the staff had specifically stated that the General Plan is the controlling document. He said that what could have been a 4:3 vote to approve the application thus became a 5:2 vote to deny. Mr. Johnson said that his client was appealing the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson said there was a real problem when there are numerous planning documents with a poor definition of their relation to each other. He said that this confusion was increased with lapse of time and corresponding changes in regulations and interpretation. He said that the City needed to address this problem of the clarity and interrelationship of various plans as a part of its efforts to attract new industry to the area and as an important step toward acknowledgement of the Metropolitan Plan, particularly fulfillment of goals 9 and 2. Mr. Johnson said that for a long period of the time involved in the history of the various processes outlined above, no question was raised over the intent of the General Plan to designate this property for commercial use. He said that the City Hearings Official had specifically found that this property is clearly designated commercial on the plan diagram map. He said that this determination was never appealed or questioned by the Planning staff or the Planning Commis- sion, and that the applicant had relied on this determination. Mr. Johnson said that he did not feel the plan language calling for transforma- tion of commercial strip development to other uses was intended to indicate retention of industrial zoning for land in the area of the request. Mr. Johnson then addressed the new set of criteria that had been adopted by the City, during the two-year period of the various Cowboy Country applications, for making planning and zoning decisions. He said he agreed that the new criteria should apply. He said that his client could not demonstrate that "land already available in the zoning classification is unable to be served by adequate public facilities and services." Addressing the problem of an adequate supply of C-2 zoned land to meet the current need, Mr. Johnson referred to the staff recommen- dation for an item heard by the Planning Commission at its April 6, 1982, meeting regarding rezoning of property in the Chevy Chase addition on Centennial Loop (Z 82-5). He quoted from the staff notes, lithe necessity of showing public MI NlJTES--Eugene City Counc i 1 April 12, 1982 Page 4