02/14/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

currently zoned M-l, under Lane County Zoni ng procedures. . He . indicated that when the County had applied for a conditional use permit, it referred its application to the eity Planning Staff, that the city had made a number of recommendations, none of which were carried out by the County. The conditional use permit indi- cated a site review by the Planning eommission, but did not say it was the City's Planning Commission, but was assumed would be by the eounty. In the meantime, the property was annexed to the city in November, 1976. Subsequently, the County was ready for Phase II, and had applied for a site review. It was then realized property had been annexed to the city and the City did not have plans for a site review. He said that under the ordinance, it would require an M-3 zoning and a conditional use permit, and feels that the City should be involved, as the property is in the city. He asked if the eounty ordinances were being violated until it's rezoned, and once rezoned if the City's ordinance would be violated. He said he felt the eity Planning staff could review for adequate compliance to zoning, and felt the City ought to make an informed decision as to what zoning the property should be when it comes into the city. Mr. Williams wanted clarification of Mr. Gleaves' testimony in which he cited lithe property is now in the city" and "when the City acquires the property." He said, as he understood it, the property was now in the city. He asked what the reasoning was that the City should have the County do a review for a facility which was within the city. Mr. Long replied that the concept of sharing ~ functions is not the question, and that the conflict between the .., M-l and M-3 zoning was not a question, because in annexing an area, it is done with city.s zoning code applying. He said the City staff could be involved in the site review with the County; that it was not a jurisdictional matter; there was a precondition existing that approval of the site review had to be done by the Lane County Planning Commission. He said the reason this agree- ment was appropriate at this time was there was no way everyone involved could be satisfied except by allowing authorization by the eity Manager to enter into this agreement with the County to have the eounty proceed with the site review. Mr. Saul said that the whole consideration of this waste facility had been before the County for several years with reviews, hearings, etc. He said the review process with Lane County could include City staff overseeing the plans and making recommendations. As far as the appropriate zoning question, he was not sure that it would have to be rezoned M-3. Councilman Hamel indicated he would abstain from discussion and voting on this issue. Mr. Bradley asked if it would be possible to have the property deannexed from the city. Mr. Saul said the reason for annexing was to transfer this facility to the city so that it could be . 2/14/77-- 44 \ 'a.O