My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01/12/1976 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1976
>
01/12/1976 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 5:23:06 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:15:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/12/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />inconsisrency; iniriation of rezoning more often comes from the Planning Cor.r.tis- <br />sion than from the Council itself. Mr. Porter noted that initiation of rezoning <br />usually takes place through the refinement process and, of course, property owners <br />are not necessarily for or against. <br /> <br />Councilman Murray was reluctant to turn all matters over to the courts for dis- <br />position; yet he did not feel the Council well prepared or analytical on the <br />issue at this point. He felt, tod, it would be inappropriate to use the Edge~/ood <br />example to change priorities on other issues. Also, he wondered if the Council <br />would be doing the residents of the area any service by taking action, recognizing <br />it would be a fairly involved process with the outcome uncertain. <br /> <br />Mr. Saul commented that the amount of involvement in the process depends on <br />time, research, etc. Mayor Anderson shared Mr. Murray's concerns, wondering <br />how long the matter would go on once started and what impact it t'/ould have on <br />the planning function. He also tyondered which side of a law sui t tJ'Je ci ty <br />would want to be on. However, in the interest of quick action, he thought it <br />would seem advisable to allow the matter to go to court rather than prolonging <br />it by hearings. He strongly recommended that Council table the issue until the <br />next committee meeting. <br /> <br />Councilman Bradley thought the Council should decide on the inconsistency issue <br />and wondered where that would.fit in on the priority schedule. If Council makes <br />a decision, he said, the parties could subsequently go to court any tolay. <br /> <br />~' <br /> <br />Mr. Murray moved second by Mrs. Shirey to table the matter for one <br />week. Mot~on carried, all council members present voting aye, <br />excepr Councilman Bradley voting no. <br /> <br />Councilman Haws requested staff comment on whether the city code is too restricrive <br />t.,i th regard to zone changes. Also, w.hether the ci ty has any. recourse should a <br />petition be destroyed by someone not in fa-vor of it before its: presentation. <br /> <br />B. Bi-Mart, 40th and Donald - A motion was tabled to this meeting to hold a <br />factual hearing on the Bi-Mart proposed location at 40th and Donald Streets <br />to decide if there is an inconsistency with the 1990 Plan and current <br />zoning, with no moratorium on the issuance of building permits during the <br />interim. <br /> <br />Manager explained there has been great interest in the matter (letters from <br />residents, phone calls, etc). <br /> <br />Mr. Saul, Planner, noted there have been many assertions made not only on what <br />the 1990 Plan says but also that, based on the General Plan and the Baker vs. <br />the City of Milwaulcie decision, the City of Eugene is required to take certain <br />forms of action. In assessing the 1990 General Plan, Mr. Saul continued, it <br />is important to go back to the formulation of that plan which was adopted in <br />1972. The consistent feeling at that time was that the plan was intended to <br />provide broad guidelines for decisions and not a blueprint. '1'00, the general <br />plan consistently talks about the need for area refinemenr studies, recognizing <br />those studies take place over a long period of time. It was never intended <br />that the 1990 Plan would reverse previous zoning decisions that had been based <br />on plans in effect in 1972. The piece of property at 40th and Donald, which is <br />now the subject of debate, was zoned C-2 in 1955 and that zoning has remained <br />in. effect since that time. That zoning was in accord with the plan for that area <br />at that time. If the 1990 Plan is considered as a broad guideline, problems <br />then arise when placing it in the context of Baker vs. Milwaulcie. The 1990 <br />Plan was adopted three years prior ro Baker vs. Milwaukie. Had it been in <br />effecr at the time the City was considering the 1990 Plan, said Mr. Saul, <br />it might have taken a far different form. Baker vs. Milwaulcie refers to, <br />the Milwaukie General Plan, which is a far more detailed plan than anything <br />Eugene has, noted Mr. Saul. Therefore, staff feels Council should be <br /> <br />1/12/76 - 4 <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Cornm <br />12/23/75 <br />Approve <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />-- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.