12/03/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Rust said he was not speaking in opposition to the request, and he asked . about differences between this property and Mr. Elliott's property, adding that he thought the unique factors mentioned above also applied to Mr. Elliott's land. He suggested including that in the work session. Ms. Wooten also requested information about the capability of easements for pump station laterals without the UGB expansion. No further testimony was offered, and Ms. larson closed the public hearing on item B-20. Index No~ B-21 McVay Highway Industrial Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, saying recommendations included an attempt to accommodate the request through amendment to the Lane County zoning code. Mr. Ivey said he understood the zoning code to be part of the plan. Mr. Gordon said the existing use was not defined as commercial in the County code, and he thought the State program allowed the flexibility to define use as recommended. County Planning Director Roy Burns said it was believed after review that an amendment to certain commercial characteristics would permit the desired use, and he said zoning codes would be coordinated with the other jurisdictions. Mr. Rogers noted that Lane County could not approve the request unilaterally, and Mr. Burns agreed, adding that the other jurisdictions could choose not to 0 comment. He also said an interpretation had been made by previous commis- sioners making street sweeping a non-conforming use. Mr. Burns said action to allow the business would require a recommendation by the Planning Commission, a draft code change, and a code amendment that would take about 60 days. Responding to a question from Mr. Hansen, Mr. Burns said the applicant intended to open an additional RV sales business on land adjacent to the existing business. He also said that could be done by changing the code to C-3, but that would not require metropolitan action. Mr. Simmons noted that difficulties had been encountered with expansion of the Emporium. Mr. Burns said that had been a zone change to industrial use. Mr. Simmons also said difficulty had occurred with the sewage disposal system, because only on-site disposal was available, and he said he was concerned about dumping contaminated wastes on nearby sites and about other environmen- tal impacts. Mr. Burns said he thought the property was served by a tank and was under a permit from DEQ. He also said impacts of expansion were subject to review at the time the request occurred. Mr. Gordon noted that a nearby resident had submitted for the record a letter supporting the lane County Planning Commission's recommendation. Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-21. . MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 18