06/27/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gleaves noted there had been only three Planning Commission -- members who voted on this denial and felt it was not a proper representation of the full Planning Commission. He also pointed out the presentation made before the Planning Commission had been by a real estate person who was more concerned with trying to show what he was going to do with the commercial land that showiong the needs and priorities of Mr. Updegrave. Mr. Gleaves reminded Council' that the business had been in its present location for over 15 years and offered a service which was the only one of its kind in Eugene. The need to expand the existing facility was re- quired by both government regulation and business economics. He said the public need to provide for the continuation of the business was intensified by the fact that OSHA regulations will require the installation and operation of very expensive dust-collecting equip- men t. He said Mr. Updegrave was trying to upgrade his business and not be forced to u~e prime land for parking. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to deny the appeal and to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Mr. Williams noted a great deal of sympathy for a person who was trying to expand his business. In trying to read through the notes and application, he said he had a great deal of difficulty in separating that which was a necessary request for expanding e business from that which was an attempt for commercial expansion. He would prefer to view those two issues separately. Mr. De 1 ay concurred with Mr. Williams regarding the question of expansion of a locally-owned business. However, the question was not whether the applicant was aSking for adequate parking, but whether rezoning would be used for some other purpose. Ms. Smith asked whether the applicant would be able to come back to the Planning Commission with another proposal. Mr. Sa u 1 sa i d the Code had a one-year limi tation, but if it were a different application, it could be considered earlier; and the one year could be waivered for a good cause. Ms. Smith noted sympathy for the expansion of the business, but felt apprehensive about the uncertain- ties expressed. Mayor Keller said Council was being faced with a question of de- fining public need. He said the tragedy that could result would be the business would exit from the community. Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. D. Budget for 1977-78 Manager said this was a pro forma hearing for overall City budget and revenue sharing components required by law. He sa i d there had been at least six budget hearings, and the process this evening was to ask for more public testimony. The actual budget ordinance e would be adopted at Council meeting June 29. He made one general observation in that the document submitted April 19, after going 51Y 6/27/77 --6