02/14/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

facts were not presented in the memorandum distributed and read into the record the findings of facts that the County Commissioners had used December 28 to base their decision to allow the conditional use permit. e Ralph Fulbright, 1551 Oak, had been a Lane County Planning Commissioner at the time the AV zoning was adopted. He felt the most important issue was that the City owns a regional airport and it has elected to preserve ownership of that airport. He felt there were responsibilities that went along with the ownership of this regional airport. He noted the current zoning of the airport was a result of the study done in 1973. The intent of the airport zoning he identi- fied was: AO zoning for property used for the airport operations; and AV zoning for other property in the immediate vicinity for office space or agricultural and industrial airport-related uses. He reiterated the regional responsibility for the regional airport and felt the airport should not be made an island. Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to direct staff to request the Lane County Commissioners to reconsider their action regarding the conditional use permit; and to take any further action that may be necessary to protect the City interests on this and any other matters that may come up in the future. Commissioner Archie Weinstein felt the Commissioners had acted within the Airport Plan, within the law, and within planning and zoning uses for that area. He said under the Airport Master Plan, office spaces are permitted. He noted this would be a nicely landscaped office building and a beautiful asset to the area. He felt the Council.s action, if it adopted the motion, would be contrary to free enterprise, due process, and just compensation. He felt this was a permitted use within the current zoning. He felt it would be a travesty to tie this issue up in courts in the next several years and ~ deprive the owner of the right to develop his property. Mr. Obie said he had been on the Lane County Planning Commission when the AV zoning was adopted. He did not find any legal problems with what the County Commissioners had done, although noted if he had more information he may be philosophically opposed. He felt a more prudent direction for Council would be to sit down with the Commissioners and land owners and try to resolve long- range plans for that area. He felt it to be truly an opportunity area. He felt the Council did not have enough information as to whether or not this develop- ment qualified under the present AV zoning. Ms. Smith supported Mr. Obie. She felt insufficient information had been given to the Council and she wanted to give it further study. She favored delaying action at this time. Mr. Delay felt the staff was asking Council simply to try to clarify the issue, and noted the time deadlines necessitating resolution today. Mr. Haws did not oppose the suggestion that the Council and Commissioners discuss future long-range plans for the area. However, he felt the City needed to protect its interests. To do that, it needed to take action within certain time limits today, and the City had to negotiate from a position of strength. He compared the area development to what has happened on River Road, and said he did not want the same thing to happen at the airport. e 2/14179--6 ~%