09/26/1983 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Croteau, responding to Ms. Davis's testimony, agreed that the area was being e developed in a spot-zoning manner. He said the area was in a mixed-use district in which a variety of zonings were appropriate. He said that this mixed-use did not mean that the entire area must be blanketed with a mixed-use zoning district. He said that the mixed-use zoning district was never intended to be uniformly applied to a large geographical area, but that it was just a tool to allow mixed-use to occur. He said that staff had initiated the process by sending out almost 200 letters asking the owners to request rezoning of their property. He said that one of Ms. Davis's lots was within the mixed-use area and the adjacent lot was in an industrial area. He said that when she discovered that the lots were being zoned differently, she requested that both lots be excluded. The council referred the request back to the Planning Commission and Ms. Davis submitted a letter requesting both lots to be excluded from the mixed-use district. He said that Ms. Davis could apply on her own to have the two lots included in the mixed-use district and that staff would be willing to to discuss with Ms. Davis any future ideas or plans for her property. In regard to Mr. Brock's request, Mr. Croteau said that his property had been included in the request when it went to the Planning Commission, but it was then excluded primarily due to an objection of his neighbor. He said that staff has no vested interest in whether Mr. Brock's property was included in the MU-R zoning, stating that staff was merely a vehicle to allow the mixed-use district to apply to those properties where desired by the owners. In regard to the testimony of the lack of notice, Mr. Croteau said that notices of all the public hearing dates had been mailed to the owners of record. He said that he could not find any evidence of error in notifying Mr. Brock or any other owner e involved in this request. Eleanor Mulder, the Planning Commission chairperson, stated that she had not studied the issue, but said that her memory of the situation was that the exclusion of Mr. Brock's property had been based on Mr. Saylor's objection and a possible lack of consistency with existing zoning. She said that the commission had been concerned that a line had to be drawn somewhere and the property north of Mr. Brock's lot was consistently low-density residential. Mr. Mulder said that the opportunity had been available for Mr. Brock to resolve some of the problems prior to this. She said that she was not sure how the commissioners would have acted if the present information had been available. In response to a question by Mayor Keller, Ms. Mulder said that the question of a height limitation referred to the issue of solar access and the height limitation present in the MU-R zoning. Mr. Croteau said the mixed-use district allowed a maximum height of 60 feet. Mr. Saylor's objection was based on the possibility of a 60-foot building being constructed next to his property. In regard to any agreement between Mr. Saylor and Mr. Brock, he said that the City would only enforce City regulations. In response to Ms. Schue's question of Ms. Davis's second lot being suitable for mixed-use zoning, Mr. Croteau said that a line had to be drawn between what was appropriate for industrial and for mixed-use. He said that the line had been drawn between her two tax lots and that the council had sent the request back to the Planning Commission for clarification. He said that Ms. Davis had then requested that both lots be excluded, as presented to the council at this meeting. - MINUTES--Eugene City Council September 26, 1983 Page 11