08/09/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Those speaking with other comment: H. Thomas Andersen, 790 West Broadway, spoke as a private citizen. He was concerned with the process to be used in considering uses for surplus public lands. He felt that closed schools should be used in a way that would benefit the public. He said that District 4-J had a record of providing inadequate opportunity for public input and therefore urged the council to make uses of surplus school property conditional, even though this would raise th,e cost of reuse, to ensure opportunity for citizen participation. He suggested that the agency owning surplus public land be responsible for applying for and obtaining the conditional use permit rather than the potential lessee. He urged the council to take time in making its decision and not to make a hasty decision. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Councilor Schue asked the composition and status of the ~-J Building Site Review Committee. Ms. Wallace responded that decisions on leases of surplus buildings for periods over three years would be made by the School Board, after public hearings, and would include referrals to other public agencies and adoption of findings of fact. She said that decisions on leases for shorter periods would be made by the superintendent. She said that the Building Site Review Committee had six voting members, two of whom served in rotating positions, representing the neighborhoods affected by particular siting decisions. Ms. Schue asked whether there had been adequate information in advance of committee meetings to provide for informed citizen input. Ms. Wallace said she believed that this was the case, but she acknowledged that the process had been confusing. Responding e further, Ms. Wallace said that tentative agreements had been reached with potential lessees, but that leases would not be signed until the process was complete. She said that this would include providing notification to neighborhood groups of proposed uses. Responding to a question from Councilor Miller, Mr. Chenkin said he believed that the 3:1 vote of the Planning Commission on this issue had included votes in favor by Commissioners Lannom, Mulder, and Anderson, and ~ vote in opposition by Commissioner Bauske. Councilor Lindberg referred to material on use of the Laurel Hill School building contained in the recently adopted Laurel Hill Refinement Plan and asked, in the event of a conflict between the two, whether that plan or PL zoning regulations would take precedence. Mr. Chenkin said that the drafting of the ordinance before the council had been done to avoid conflict between the two documents. He said it was a matter of judgment whether the proposed use of the property presented a conflict. Responding to a question from Mr. Lindberg, Ms. Wallace said that it was the policy of the school district to comply with adopted refinement plans. Responding to a question from Councilor Wooten, Ms. Wallace said that to date there had been no request for the school board to hold a hearing on the lease application of Community Services of Lane County. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council August 9, 1982 Page 5