My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02/23/1976 Meeting
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
Historic Minutes
>
1976
>
02/23/1976 Meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/27/2007 5:42:05 PM
Creation date
11/2/2006 5:16:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Meeting
CMO_Meeting_Date
2/23/1976
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
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 />No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were declared, other than Council- <br />man Haws declaring the first request was before the Planning Commission at the <br />time he was president of the Active Bethel Citizens neighborhood group, and ABC <br />opposed the request at that time. He said he would not participate in the issue <br />now to give the applicant an opportunity to present his case and to make the hear- <br />ing,as fair as possible. However, assuming the request was denied and comes back <br />to the Council at some future time, he said, he would then participate. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of January 6, 1976 were recieved and <br />made a part of the record by reference thereto. <br /> <br />Public hearing was opened. <br /> <br />Don Frosland, 86389 Sanford Road, owner of the property, said that basically the I-B-l <br />reason for the 1973 denial was that the request was considered premature because <br />of plans for extension of Highway 126 in that area. However, those plans have not <br />materialized and did not appear likely to materialize, hence the resubmittal of the <br />request for light industrial zoning. He said financial backing could not be ob- <br />tained for residential construction in that area and that no new homes had been <br />built there for the past 25 years. Every property owner in the area he had talked <br />with, he said, was not opposed to the M-2 zoning which would be in compliance with <br />the General Plan. He noted the M-2 zone on property to the south and said the owner <br />of the only house on residentially zoned property had not objected to his plans. In <br />fact, he said, that owner had been parking logging trucks adjacent to the subject <br />property. He said he had owned the property for five years, paying taxes and sewer <br />assessments, but found there was no way to make use of the property as now zoned. <br />Also, that many people were looking for M-2 rather than heavy industrial property. <br />He thought the three lots involved would be an ideal location for electrical or ~ <br />plumbing shops, storing materials, etc. .., <br /> <br />Frank Bonson, 390 West 23rd Avenue, designer, noted that the proposed extension of <br />Highway l26,had it been constructed, was indicated in the 1990 Plan as the divid- <br />ing line between industrial and residential uses. That route would have been <br />300 feet north of this property, and anything south of it, according to the Plan, <br />would have been M-2. He said it was not true that there was a large amount of M-2 <br />land available for development in that area, citing the zones applicable to various <br />vacant properties in the immediate vicinity. He noted too that owners of abutting <br />properties were in favor of the light industrial zoning proposed. Existing non- <br />conforming uses in the area, he said, substantiated the need for some zone other <br />than residential. He listed a number of uses he felt would be appropriate for the <br />area. Mr. Bonson continued that the staff in its recommendation in 1973 for approval <br />of M-2 zoning listed findings in support of the change - it conformed to the General <br />Plan, there would be no adverse effect on existing residential uses, no further <br />residential development was expected in the area, it was contiguous to M-2 zoning, <br />etc. He quoted from the 1990 Plan with regard to industrial land use in relation <br />to the economy, stating that economy was one of the criteria for need for the zone <br />change. He added that the Plan also stated that undeveloped lots having services <br />available yet lying dormant place a heavy and unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. <br />Development of this property, he said, would increase tax revenues for $1200. <br /> <br />Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. <br /> <br />Mr. Saul called attention to the fact that when the zone change was requested <br />previously (1973) the Fasano regulations were not in effect so the staff analysis ~ <br />at that time made no reference to public need, etc. Evaluation at this time, he ~ <br />said, was based on standards required by the Fasano decision, hence the recommenda- <br />tion for denial because of lack of public need and the existence of extensive in- <br />dustrial properties that are vacant. <br /> <br />2/23/76 - 6 <br /> <br />AHt <br />:rl ' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.