Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> . Fred Dodson, 85169 Kensin ton Drive, Pleasant Hill, representing Mid-State <br /> n ustr1a erV1ce, nc., spo e 1n avor 0 e request. He said the property <br /> had been occupied for 8 years under a conditional use permit, under which <br /> existing facilities were required to be used, and no additions or significant <br /> changes were allowed. Mr. Dodson said facilities were no longer sufficient to <br /> accommodate equipment. He said services supplied were similar to those <br /> supplied by municipalities, such as street and parking lot sweeping, and were <br /> used by several smaller communities in the area. He also said the only type <br /> of zoning that appeared to fit was M-2, contractor's equipment storage yard, <br /> adding that he did not think it fit very well. Mr. Dodson cited the impor- <br /> tance of easy access to freeways and major arterials. He said hazardous <br /> wastes were disposed of at Short Mountain, and the majority of his customers <br /> also had on-site disposal~ He said he would like to build a shop facility to <br /> better serve his needs, adding that he had been in the area for 15 years and <br /> felt it was important to change in response to changing needs. <br /> Marvin Denton, 33568 Bloomberg Road, tax lot 900, spoke in opposition to the <br /> request. He said he owned the property adjacent to that proposed for the <br /> addition, and he noted that he had submitted a letter to the record. He said <br /> the letter outlined his concerns, primarily that allowing the expansion would <br /> have a negative impact on his home, which he said was quite close to the pro- <br /> posed business. <br /> Mr. Dodson spoke in rebuttal, saying he appreciated the concern but felt <br /> buffering would be adequate, if not better than that already existing. He <br /> said the shop facility would replace an uninhabitable duplex on the lot, which <br /> . would have to be removed anyway. <br /> No further testimony was offered, and Ms. Larson closed the public hearing on <br /> item B-21. <br /> Index No~ B-22 Hayden Bridge UGB Correction <br /> Mr. Gordon presented the staff report. He said the area shown as Low-Density <br /> Residential north of Hayden Bridge and outside the UGB was recommended for <br /> agricultural designation, and the southern portion would remain Low-Density <br /> Residential with the UGB extended to the river. <br /> Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-22. No testimony <br /> was offered, and the public hearing was closed. <br /> Index No. B-23 Awbrey-Meadowv1ewlndustr1al S1te <br /> Mr. Gordon presented the staff report, noting that MPC had been unable to <br /> resolve the issue. He said its two positions were outlined in MPC's Report <br /> volume 2, section V. The applicants had agreed at the Planning Commission <br /> hearing with the staff recommendation and had withdrawn the request for an <br /> amendment. He said applicants now were requesting that the tract be included <br /> in the Growth Alternative Study. <br /> Ms. Larson opened the public hearing on diagram amendment B-23. <br /> . <br /> MINUTES--Joint Public Hearing--Metro Plan Amendments December 3, 1985 Page 19 <br />