04/26/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e restaurant and an automobile dealership, both uses no longer permitted as outright uses in the industrial zones; 2) the owner wishes to reuse the former Barker Chrysler automobile dealership, which contains over 4,000 square feet of existing office space but which, under the current zoning, can only be used for industrial uses; and 3) development of the restaurant on the northern portion of the property and of the dealership on the southern portion leaves the center two acres available for further development, and development of this area for industrial use would not be compatible with the existing commercial uses. Mr. Saul then addressed the discussion of the Planning Commission on conformance of the request with the Metropolitan Area General Plan diagram. He said that he recognized the warnings previously made by the council regarding attempts to draw site-specific conclusions from the diagram. He said that nonetheless, it was important to determine whether the property in question was designated for commercial use in the diagram. He said that the position of the applicant was that the preponderance of the evidence before the council indicates that the property is designated for commercial use in the August 1980 version of the plan diagram. To support this position, Mr. Saul submitted a copy of a computer simulation of that diagram which had been included in the 1982 amendments to the Metropolitan Plan. He noted that the Planning Commission's discussion had also addressed the question of the consistency of the requested rezoning with the policies and objectives stated in the text of the plan. He cited pages 5 and 6 of section II-E of the plan, which refers to acknowledged commercial strip development along existing arterials, and said that this section affirmed the applicant's contention that the text of the plan also supports the requested rezoning. He said that the plan explicitly permits and allows continuation of commercial uses in "areas characterized by existing commercial uses." e Mr. Saul said he wished to correct a statement that appeared in the applicant's statement and in the appeal statement. He said that the statement had been made in those documents that the subject property was included in the inventory of land allocated for commercial use. Mr. Saul said that this statement was incorrect and that the statement should be corrected to indicate that the property was included in the inventory of existing commercial uses. Mr. Saul also urged the council to consider the treatment of heavy industrial use in the plan. He referred to page 6 of section II-E of the plan and said that the plan makes it clear that there is no forecasted demand for additional heavy industrial land. He added that the only situation in which the plan allocates further heavy industrial land is for expansion of an existing, con- tiguous heavy industry. Mr. Saul referred to Policy 6 in the economic element of the plan and said that this policy urges that the amount of property zoned for heavy industrial use be reduced. Mr. Saul stated that the totality of the text of the plan supports the application. Mr. Saul cited reference which had been made to the statement in the West Eugene Industrial Study that "existing areas zoned for industrial use should remain" so zoned. He referred to page 1-5 of the Metropolitan Area General Plan, which was adopted subsequent to the West Eugene study, and noted that the metro plan included the statement that it takes precedence and prevails over previously adopted refinement plans. Mr. Saul noted that the council had acknowledged precedence of the metro plan over the West Eugene .plan in its decision regarding the Fred Meyer and Cowboy Country rezoning requests. He summarized his remarks - MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 26, 1982 Page 10