12/03/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Responding to a question from Mr. Obie, Ms. Bishow said the Eugene Planning e Commission had made its recommendation for clarification because the Metro Plan diagram would show an area indicated in red that was not site specific and might be subject to later expansion. Mr. Obie suggested more clarifica- tion. He also asked whether any zoning existed that would allow the desired use without raising neighbors' fears about commercial intrusion into the neighborhood. Ms. Bishow said the general office zoning district would allow office use, but not retail activities such as fast food restaurants, clothing or book stores. Eugene Planning Director Susan Brody said approval of the amendment would allow the designation IICoRlllunity Commercial II to be shown on the plan diagram for the area. She said if the area was annexed, it could be rezoned to any commercial zoning category. Ms. Brody said the Planning Com- mission had clarified its intent that if rezoning occurred, it would be to General Office zoning. She added that General Office was considered a com- mercial zone under the Eugene code. Mr. Hledik said Wildish had applied for commercial designation only because no designation existed for office use. He also said they had no problems with the restrictions. Responding to a question from Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Hledik said access would be via County Farm Road. He also said the balance of the 40-acre parcel was owned by Wildish, and the remaining 35 acres of property would continue to be desig- nated Low-Density Residential. He added that the property was a vacant field at present. e No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on item B-9. Index No. 8-10 Santa Clara Floating Node Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-10. Gordon Elliott, 1414 Polk Street/1267 Irvin ton Drive, Eu ene, spoke in OppOS1 tion. He said he ad een invo ved 1n eve opment 1n the Eugene area for several decades and he thought downzoning should not be done without a very good reason because of the difficulty it causes in long-term planning. He described his difficulties with the planning process and said statewide goals for development and improvements at the least public expense were being ignored. He said he had all utilities necessary for development of his property, but it had been zoned only for agricultural use. He also said sewer lines had been laid near his property, but he was told he could not hook up to them. Mr. Elliott said land that would have met the statewide goals could have been obtained but was left out because it was not in a city tax base. Ms. Larson informed Mr. Elliott that he had reached the time limit for testi- mony, and she called a five-minute recess. e MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 11